Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2021-11-23The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, November 23, 2021 7:00 p.m. In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 23, 2021. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. OPTIONAL REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING Remote options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online via Zoom Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference. CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040 ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated November 9, 2021, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated November 9, 2021 and Special Town Board Minutes dated November 11, 2021. 3. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated October 19, 2021 (Acknowledgement only). 4. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated October 21, 2021 (Acknowledgement only). 5. Community and Family Advisory Board Minutes dated October 11, 2021 (Acknowledgement only). Prepared 11-12-2021 *Revised 11-19-2021 Page 1 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 6. Appointment of Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to complete the term of Michael Kennedy. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. PETITION FOR FINE-IN-LIEU OF SUSPENSION FOR GALEX LLC DBA CHELITOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 145 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Special Prosecutor Brown. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1. 2021 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OVERVIEW AND 2022 PLAN. Superintendent Sidles. 2. ESTES PARK WESTERN HERITAGE, INC., FINANCIAL REPORT. Western Heritage Board Chairman Purdy. Annual financial report required in the MOU. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 83-21 COLORADO OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber. Colorado Department of Law came to an agreement with Colorado’s local governments for distributing opioid settlement and recovery funds to local counties and municipalities. 2. ORDINANCE 17-21 AMENDING ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.20.010 COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES. Town Clerk Williamson. To consider amending the compensation provided to newly elected officials in 2022. ADJOURN. * Page 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 9, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of November, 2021. Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Carlie Bangs Marie Cenac Barbara MacAlpine Scott Webermeier Cindy Younglund Also Present: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Trustee Bangs and Town Administrator Machalek Mayor Koenig called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Koenig read a proclamation recognizing “Emergency Response Efforts During the 2020 Wildfires”. YEARS OF SERVICE RECOGNITION: Mayor Koenig recognized staff meeting service milestones with the Town, including Shaun Bledsoe – 15 years, Gregory Filsinger II and Michael McEndaffer – 10 years, and Bunny Beers, Devin Gelsinger, Duane Hudson, Michael Northcutt, Cory Ramacher, Marilyn Williams and Brenda Wyss – 5 years. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Martchink) to approve the Agenda as presented, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. John Meissner, Town Citizen provided comments on the list of impacted department/divisions the Board discussed during the de-Brucing item at the November 9, 2021 study session, proposed ballot questions and stated the need for public access to information. He stated concern for the disregard of the mask mandate issued by Larimer County and emphasized proper hygiene and recommended the Town educate local businesses or promote and encourage the mask mandate. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: The Larimer County Housing Stability Manager, Claire Bouchard attended the Community & Family Advisory Board meeting to discuss eviction assistance and the Emergency Rental and Utility Assistance Program; the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation hosted the Larimer County/Estes Park Workforce Housing Symposium on November 4, 2021 which was well attended by community leaders; a COVID-19 vaccine and booster bus was provided at the Dia de los Muertos celebration; Larimer County Health Director Gonzales provided an update to elected officials stating 94% of patients in ICU’s are unvaccinated leaving the units overwhelmed and patients are being transported from the Valley into Estes Park to relieve the stress on hospitals; Members of the Board attended National Philanthropy day at the YMCA of the Rockies, where Mayor Pro Tem Martchink was honored to be nominated as Philanthropist of the Year; the CompPAC held a visioning session on November 3, 2021 and would hold a second session on November 17, 2021, the public was encouraged to attend and provide input on the Comprehensive Plan; the Environmental Sustainability Task Force would hold a virtual listening session on November 16, 2021; and reminded citizens to get their COVID vaccine. DRAFTPage 3 Board of Trustees – November 9, 2021 – Page 2 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. None. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated October 26, 2021 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated October 26, 2021. 3. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 15, 2021 (acknowledgement only). 4. Park Advisory Board Minutes dated September 16, 2021 (acknowledgement only). 5. Resolution 77-21 Transportation Alternatives Program and Multimodal Options Fund Professional Services Contract with Otak, Inc., for Fall River Trail Project, $120,585.00, Budgeted. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1. ESTES VALLEY OPEN SPACE PLAN AWARD. Estes Valley Land Trust Executive Director Boring was joined by Naomi Hawf/Estes Park Housing Authority Director, Zac Wiebe/Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, Estee Rivera, Rocky Mountain Conservancy and a local 5th Grader who acknowledged the development of the Estes Valley Open Space Plan which was the recipient of the Colorado Open Space Alliance and American Planning Association awards. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 15-21 AMENDING CHAPTERS 3, 4, 5 AND 13 AND ADDING CHAPTER 14 TO THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCF). Mayor Koenig opened the public hearing. Staff provided a thorough overview of the amendments and stated the regulations are in line with current technology, terminology, and are consistent with the latest applicable Federal regulations. Highlights of the overview included: Removing obsolete language and references, establish Chapter 14, Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF); Conditional Use Permit (CUP) language for certain WCFs and a Neighborhood and Community Meeting requirement and Chapter 4 table updates for permitted uses. The new regulations would generally apply to facilites which involve “personal wireless services” where cellular or mobile phone service providers construct and erect the majority of facilities, including atennas, base stations, support equipment, towers, and alternate tower structures. Mr. Dittman/Town council stated the changes were required for compliance with Federal and State law and additional steps may be necessary to fully complete the process of regulating these new types of facilities. The proposed amendments were approved for recommendation by the Estes Park Planning Commission at their September 21, 2021 meeting. Staff have received input about facilities and expects more interest after the code adoption. Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Webermeier) to approve Ordinance 15-21 amending Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 13 and adding Chapter 14 to the Estes Park Development Code regarding Wireless Communication Facilities (WFC), and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: DRAFTPage 4 Board of Trustees – November 9, 2021 – Page 3 1. PUBLIC HEARING - 2022 BUDGET. Mayor Koenig reopened the public hearing continued from October 26, 2021. Director Hudson presented the proposed 2022 budget of approximately $79 million with appropriations at $78,759,713. The budget outlines the intended uses of the Highway User Trust Fund revenues received from the State of Colorado estimated at $280,604, used to offset costs in the Streets division of Public Works. Resolution 78-21 would set the mill levy for 2022 at 1.822 mills for a total of approximately $461,908 in property tax revenues. Resolution 79- 21 would adopt the 2022 budget as presented. Resolution 80-21 would appropriate sums of money to be expended as outlined in the proposed budget. Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to approve the utilization of the Highway User’s Trust Fund for expenditures for striping, snow plowing, traffic signs, street lights, and other related road and street costs as proposed for 2022, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to approve Resolution 78- 21 to set the mill levy, Resolution 79-21 to adopt the 2022 budget, and 80-21 to appropriate sums of money for 2022, and it passed unanimously. 2. VISIT ESTES PARK (VEP) 2022 OPERATING PLAN. Per the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County, the VEP Operating Plan shall be approved, modified, or disapproved by both the Town and County no later than December 5th of each year. VEP CEO Franker presented the Plan to the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners on October 5, 2021. Larimer County Commissioners unanimously approved the Operating Plan on October 12, 2021. She stated the Plan focuses on VEPs committment to enhancing engagement with the community to better manage the visitor economy and effectively integrate tourism and economic development in a sustainable manner. VEP has received results from a data analysis program through Destination Analyst and AirDNA which would be presented to the Board and community when available. VEP CEO Franker recommended approval of the 2022 Operating Plan and invited the Board and members of the public to visit the new office for an Open House on December 8, 2021. Mike Bryson/Town Citizen stated concerns regarding VEP, their contributions to boosting tourism and relaying information to visitors. Donna Carlson/Estes Chamber of Commerce Executive Director commended VEP and the efforts of CEO Franker in building partnerships in the community. John Meissner/Town Citizen stated his interest in the engagement with local businesses. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Cenac) to approve the Visit Estes Park 2022 Operating Plan, and it passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION 81-21 ESTABLISHING 2022 SEASONAL PAID PARKING AND PARKING PERMIT FEES. On October 26, 2021 staff presented results from the 2021 paid parking season and recommendations for the 2022 paid parking program. Staff recommended focusing on improving the existing operation and customer experience rather than expanding the program and/or raising the fees. The seasonal paid parking program for the 2022 summer guest season would operate from May 27, 2022 through October 26, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week, at $2.00 per hour. Paid parking would encompass 682 total spaces in the following same eight public parking areas as utilized in 2021: Town Hall, Bond Park, E. Riverside, Riverside, Virginia, the Post Office, Weist and Tregent. Manager Solesbee stated 69% of all parking in Estes Park and 33% of parking in the downtown core would remain free of charge. Staff proposed working actively with the Estes Chamber of Commerce during the 2021-2022 winter season to address concerns raised by the Chamber at the October 26, 2021 study session. Staff reviewed the goals of the paid parking program: make parking available and support the economic vitality of the downtown area, encourage adequate turnover and use of the perimeter parking areas including the parking structure and use of the Town’s free shuttle service and reduce congestion. Staff stated their commitment to utilize customer feedback on operations to invest in the customer experience, streamline permitting, remove friction in going downtown, develop unified branded signage, and provide safe late-night transport for all members of the community and visitors. Ann Finley/Town Citizen and member of the Transportation Advisory Board commended the efforts on a long process of gathering input and adjusting to new data related to DRAFTPage 5 Board of Trustees – November 9, 2021 – Page 4 paid parking and stated her support in the Town joining the long line of mountain town communities implementing paid parking. Donna Carlson, Estes Chamber of Commerce Executive Director stated her support for building a partnership with the Town to form a task-force to activate the initiatives identified by Town staff for 2022. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/MacAlpine) to approve Resolution 81- 21, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. Wendy Koenig, Mayor Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRAFTPage 6 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 9, 2021 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of November, 2021. Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund Attending: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Cenac, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Damweber, Town Attorney Kramer, Recording Secretary Disney, Director Hudson, Director Muhonen, and Engineer Waters Absent: Trustee Bangs and Town Administrator Machalek Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. TABOR RESTRICTIONS/DE-BRUCING. Director Hudson presented further information on TABOR restrictions and de-Brucing regarding the 2022 General Municipal Election proposed ballot question. The proposed ballot question would determine whether the Town, without increasing or imposing new taxes, could be authorized to collect, retain, spend or reserve all revenues from all lawful sources and remove any limitations imposed by the November 7, 2000 Ballot Measure. He highlighted the TABOR revenue limitations, the current de-Brucing clause and problems associated with provisions and restrictions, specified accounting, specified and ineligible uses of funds, proposed solutions and options, and the proposed ballot language. The Board discussed current Town debts, options for using de-Bruced funds, investment options, property tax increases, potential changes to TABOR in the future, personnel expense growth assumptions, effects of any future elections on the current de-Brucing clause and next steps. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber emphasized the importance of the ballot question and the Board directed staff to adjust the language regarding property tax for clarification and simplification to be presented at a future Town Board meeting. STORMWATER UTILITY. Director Muhonen and Engineer Waters provided a history of the Stormwater Utility and highlighted previous efforts on the utility, and meetings held with Larimer County. Staff recommended the formation of a stormwater utility, the inclusion of parcels within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary, and inclusion of a sales tax revenue component to lower user fees. The Board discussed establishing a stormwater utility, cooperation with Larimer County for the utility, previously proposed user fees, sales tax percentages, previous public outreach, multi-faceted funding options, and phased implementation. The Board directed staff to continue cooperative efforts with Larimer County utilizing updated information on user fees and sales tax funding options. COMMUNITY AND FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber presented the discussion on the Community and Family Advisory Board (CFAB) and highlighted the purpose, productivity, initiative, and necessity of CFAB. Vice-Chair Almond spoke about the establishment of CFAB, DRAFTPage 7 Town Board Study Session – November 9, 2021 – Page 2 formerly the Family Advisory Board, defining ‘family’, and need for additional Board direction. The Board discussed establishing a task force for needs which may arise, CFAB Member concerns, and the broad focus of CFAB. The Board determined for Trustees MacAlpine and Younglund to create recommendations on how to proceed with CFAB for Board review. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber presented the discussion on Arts in Public Places and highlighted a memorandum from Parks Advisory Board (PAB) Chair Elliot which provided the following recommendations: development of an Arts Master Plan, establish an arts-focused board with curatorial staff involvement, and engage existing community arts organizations. The Board discussed PAB providing further input to the Board, the Arts Master Plan, cooperation with the Arts District and other entities, asset maintenance and staffing needs. The Board directed staff to schedule an additional study session discussion with representatives of PAB. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. None. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber requested scheduling a 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan and it was determined to schedule this as a Report & Discussion item at the November 23, 2021 regular Town Board meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFTPage 8 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 11, 2021 Minutes of a Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of November, 2021. Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Marie Cenac Barbara MacAlpine Scott Webermeier Cindy Younglund Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Carlie Bangs, Trustee Mayor Koeing called the special meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. LIQUOR LICENSE AUTHORITY: Kristin Brown/Special Prosecutor reviewed the stipulation agreement that if approved the licensee would admit to violations of C.R.S. 44-3-901(1)(a): to sell or serve any alcohol beverage to a visibly intoxicated person and C.R.S. 44-3-301(3)(a): to allow any other person to exercise the privileges of its liquor license with a suspension of 50 days with 15 days served from December 5, 2021 through December 19, 2021 and 35 days held in abeyance for one year from the acceptance of the agreement. A third violation of C.R.S. 44-3-4113(9) would be dismissed with the acceptance of the stipulation agreement. The agreement also outlines the requirement for training of the current staff within 60 days of the Findings and Order and all future staff within 60 days of the start of employment. Discussion was heard among the authority on the payment of a fine in lieu of serving the suspension, the dates of the suspension, and the licenses past history of violations and fines. Special Prosecutor Brown stated the licensee was cited in 2012 for the same violation by the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division for allowing Mr. Rojas to operate the privileges of the liquor license. Mr. Proffitt commented he would discuss with the licensee their option to petition to pay a fine in lieu of serving the suspension. It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Webermeier) to approve the terms and conditions of the Stipulation Agreement and authorize Chair Koenig sign the Findings and Order after Ms. Santana Gonzalez has signed the Stipulation Agreement, and it passed with Trustee Younglund voting “No”. Whereupon Mayor Koenig returned to the Town Board meeting and adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m. Wendy Koenig, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFTPage 9       Page 10 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 19, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 19 day of October 2021. Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser, Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene Centurione. Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins, Commissioner Hanson, Director Jessica Garner, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara MacAlpine Absent: Commissioner Centurione Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Also attending were Logan Graves and Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates consultants. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT. Due to technical issues, the public was not let into the meeting until 1:45 p.m. Attorney Kramer noted that public comment is not typically allowed on discussion items. Two members of the public were allowed to speak later in the meeting, both expressing their frustration of not being able to join at the start. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Elkins) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 4-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Planner II Bergeron continued discussion on the proposed code amendment regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’S). Code language revisions since the last meeting consist of eliminating the off-street parking requirement and prohibition of home occupation provisions. Enforcement of minimum lot size for the zoning district sets clear language on what properties ADUs will be allowed. Variances for “uses” are not allowed. Bergeron reviewed questions brought up by the public, including that 30-day rentals are universally accepted as “long-term rentals” in local codes and don’t require property management; ADU’s are very different from Vacation Homes; street parking will be allowed where it is already permitted and not permitted where it currently isn’t. It was agreed to bring this Code Amendment to the November 16 Planning Commission meeting for public hearing. Public Comment: Rick Ralph, 395 Park View Lane, commented on the lack of restrictions. Note: most comments were inaudible. It was requested Mr. Ralph submit an email outlining his concerns. 2. Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates, spoke on strategies to increase attainable housing supply. Staff identified a new density bonus zone district as one viable solution, RM-2. This zone district would increase general housing production and incentivize attainable housing development. Two tiers of bonuses would be enabled: Tier 1 (base entitlement) would allow up to 16 units per acre; Tier 2 would allow up to 32 units per acre (4x the current RM/Residential-multifamily zone). Questions for discussion were proposed, including where would RM-2 Page 11 Planning Commission – October 19, 2021 – Page 2 apply, what standards would apply and the targeted population. Considerable debate on these questions was had. Director Garner stated that proposals would be thoroughly researched and evaluated using existing criteria. Attorney Kramer pointed out that rezoning standards are in the Development Code, and it is the job of the Planning Commission to determine if the plan is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. A video presentation created by Ayres of 32 units/acre developments will be shared with the Commission. This amendment will be revisited at the December 21 Planning Commission Meeting, and an online public forum will be scheduled before that time. 3. Director Garner reviewed the RE-1 Zoning District, explaining that it is a residential zoning district that requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. There are only three parcels zoned RE-1, one owned by the Town of Estes Park, the other two owned by Rocky Mountain National Park. Rezoning these parcels to RE would be the first step, followed by eliminating the RE-1 zone district from the Estes Park Development Code and the Estes Park Municipal Code. There will be a virtual community/neighborhood meeting on November 1 to discuss this. The public hearing is scheduled to take place at the November 16 Planning Commission meeting. REPORTS: Director Garner reviewed the progress of the Comprehensive Plan. Virtual visioning workshops will be held on November 3 and November 17. Public Comment: Rex Poggehpohl, town citizen, suggested the following: RM-2 zoning should be aligned along the traffic corridors, not in other residential areas; 24 units/acre instead of 32; all RM districts should have heavy buffers between zoning districts; minimum lot size should be used as well as minimum and maximum parking requirements. There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. Matt Comstock, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Page 12 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 21, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held via ZOOM in said Town of Estes Park on October 21 2021. Committee: Chair Matthew Heiser, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Members David Bangs, Eric Blackhurst, Kirby Nelson-Hazelton, John Schnipkoweit, Karen Thompson, Rose Truman, David Wolf, David Shirk, Matt Comstock, Mike Kennedy Also Attending: Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Larimer County Community Development Director Lesli Ellis, Trustee Barbara MacAlpine, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Kennedy, Shirk, Comstock Chair Heiser called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Approval of Minutes from October 7, 2021 2. Approval of updated Bylaws. It was requested to pull the Bylaws off consent and move to an action item. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Bangs) to approve the minutes. The motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote. ACTION ITEM: The updated Bylaws have a reference to CFAB instead of CompPac. The mistake has been corrected. It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Leavitt) to approve the Bylaws. The motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote. DISCUSSION ITEMS: (all comments have been summarized) Miriam McGilvray, Project Manager for Logan Simpson, discussed how the outreach would be handled and the expectations of the Committee members. It is important to remember who to engage and get the word out about upcoming Community Visioning Events. Chair Heiser asked that Logan Simpson tell the Committee what they are looking for from the community engagement, a “meeting in a box.” Member Thompson noted that talking points and standard answers would help with outreach. Director Garner shared the engageestes.org website is the best place to send people who have questions. Vice-Chair Leavitt asked for the list of stakeholders be shared with the Committee. The “Snapshot” document was centered around already engaged stakeholders, and the 33 interviews are not nearly enough to base the plan data on. The information was obtained by a joint effort from the consulting teams. The 2020 census data is trickling in, and only pieces of that were used. Member Blackhurst asked how the taxing districts that have presented at the CompPac meetings fit into the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. Director Garner stated that a Comp Plan isn’t a regulatory document but a guidebook to form the common goal that encompasses all aspects of a community, “the should”; the Development Code is “the Page 13 CompPAC – Oct, 21, 2021 – Page 2 shall.” The role of all the “players” is essential to understand. Next steps: after the engagement process, a summary of the data collected will be done, and a joint meeting with the Estes Valley Comp Plan Committee will be held in December to present the results. The November 18 meeting will host Cato Kraft from EPNRC and Ruben Bergsten from the Utilities Department. Both sanitation districts will speak at the December 2 meeting. There being no further business, Chair Heiser adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m. Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Page 14 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 11, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY AND FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of October, 2021. Committee: Chair Dale Marshall, Vice Chair Almond, Members Brown, Bryant, DeLorme, Douglas and Strom Attending: Chair Dale Marshall, Vice Chair Almond, Members Brown, Bryant, DeLorme, Douglas and Strom, Town Board Liaison Younglund, Assistant Town Administrator Damweber and Deputy Town Clerk Beers Absent: None Chair Dale Marshall called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. WELCOME NEW MEMBER. The Community and Family Advisory Board (CFAB) welcomed new member Patti Brown who provided an overview of her experience and background. PUBLIC COMMENT. Christy Crosser/Town of Estes Park Grant Specialist requested promotion and participation in Larimer County’s Child Safety Survey and would be sending information to staff for distribution to the CFAB. TRUSTEE AND STAFF LIAISON UPDATE. Liaison Younglund attended a ribbon cutting at the Trailblazer Broadband location and the Time Emporium Escape Rooms noting their family friendly challenge. She stated the 2022 Budget would be reviewed by the Town Board at the October 26, 2021 and November 9, 2021 meetings. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber stated a Town Board Study Session item has been scheduled for November 9, 2021 to discuss CFAB and the level of productivity, clarity and direction in directives from the Town Board. Chair Dale Marshall requested clarification on participation during the meeting and encouraged CFAB members to attend. Comprehensive Plan Engagement - Assistant Town Administrator Damweber presented the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Snapshots produced by the CompPAC and plan consultant. He stated the plan focuses on land use and may contain elements which relate to the focus area of CFAB. The CompPAC would be holding additional engagement opportunities in November. More details related to the comprehensive plan are available at www.engageestes.org. 2021 Strategic Plan Check-In – An overview of the Strategic Plan objective was provided highlighting items which staff are currently working on related to workforce housing and childcare initiatives. The Town Board would be scheduling a Study Session to discuss a Town owned property with potential to be utilized as a childcare center. The proposed 2022 Budget incorporated Workforce Housing General Fund reserves which would be utilized to address workforce housing infrastructure at the Town owned Fish Hatchery property. 2022 Strategic Plan – Assistant Town Administrator Damweber reviewed the workforce housing and childcare related items in the 2022 Strategic Plan including: Negotiate development agreement with AmericaWest for Workforce Housing on the Fish Hatchery site; evaluate additional funding streams for the workforce housing reserve fund; participate in the County Strategic Plan childcare capacity team; and establish a reserve fund to fund investment in childcare. Discussion ensued regarding building height code Page 15 Community and Family Advisory Board – October 11, 2021 – Page 2 changes and how the building height changes in the code could help address needs related to childcare and locations for childcare centers. Vice Chair Almond questioned the appropriate times to provide input from the CFAB regarding strategic plan objectives which relate to the CFAB focus area. An overview of Base Funding and Community Initiative Funding was provided to the CFAB. Workforce Housing – Assistant Town Administrator Damweber would meet with the workforce housing consultant AmericaWest to discuss the Town owned Fish Hatchery property site and workforce housing development. He stated a grant application has been submitted to the Department of Local Affairs which could be applied towards a housing needs assessment. At the September 14, 2021 Town Board meeting staff were directed to pursue a fee study related to the nexus between residential short-term rentals and workforce housing. MEETING MINUTES DATED JUNE 3, 2021 AND SEPTEMBER 2, 2021. It was moved and seconded (Almond\Strom) to approved the minutes dated June 3, 2021 and September 2, 2021 and it passed unanimously. ADVOCACY AT TOWN BOARD MEETINGS. Chair Dale Marshall and Member Brown would provide public comment during the October 12, 2021 Town Board meeting to provide a brief overview of CFAB efforts. DISCUSSION OF DRAFTED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD. Discussion ensued regarding CFAB recommendations and has been summarized: Whether the CFAB should identify and recommend a specific dollar amount for the Childcare Reserve Fund (CRF), based on a percentage of the known need in the community as identified in the Childcare Needs Assessment; how the Workforce Housing Reserve Fund amount was determined and if a similar method could be used for the CRF; would creating the CRF replace the annual $10,000 provided by the Town for childcare needs, and whether annual unallocated funds are rolled into the following year. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Almond) to bring forward recommendations presented by CFAB provided below in verbatim to the Town Board, and it passed unanimously: • Town Trustees shall direct Town Staff to develop policy that establishes a CRF within the Town Budget, as set as a goal in the current Strategic Plan, that has the ability to grow over time and may be utilized to increase childcare capacity and early education opportunities, and that shall be modeled after the existing Housing Reserve Fund. • Support the efforts of community partners by offering the services and expertise of Town Staff in the development of a comprehensive inventory of existing buildings, buildable spaces, and future development that could include a childcare component by offering the services and expertise of Town Staff. • Engage in partnership with community-based organization Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) Family Resource Center) to explore the viability of Town owned property located at 179 Stanley Circle for use as a childcare/early education site. CFAB was in agreement to provide the Town Board a summary of the discussions related to defining the term family. There being no further business Chair Dale Marshall adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk Page 16 TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: November 23, 2021 RE: Appointment of Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to complete the term of Michael Kennedy. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment__ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To consider the recommended appointment for the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CompPAC). Present Situation: Michael Kennedy resigned from his non-voting position on CompPAC effective November 2, 2021. Due to time constraints of the Comprehensive Plan and to expedite the appointment process, the interview committee, consisting of Mayor Koenig and Trustee MacAlpine, determined to recommend the appointment of a former applicant from the application process held in May 2021. Mr. Theis had previously applied for a position on the committee and expressed continued interest in the committee’s endeavors. Proposal: The interview committee recommends the appointment of Frank Theis to complete the term of Michael Kennedy expiring upon the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan, expected to be completed in late December 2022. Advantages: Filling the position would complete the eleven-member committee. Disadvantages: If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could be advertised and interviews conducted. Action Recommended: Appoint Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to complete the term of Michael Kennedy. Page 17 Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move for the approve/deny the appointment of Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to complete the term of Michael Kennedy. Attachments: None. Page 18 1616 17th Street, Suite 362 720-452-2646 Denver, CO 80202 RunProLaw.com 1 November 17, 2021 Via Email To: jwilliamson@estes.org Estes Park Liquor Licensing Authority c/o Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RE: Petition for Acceptance of Fine-in-Lieu of Suspension Galex, LLC d/b/a Chelitos Mexican Restaurant 145 E. Elkhorn Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 License No.: 42-68041-0000 Dear Estes Park Liquor Licensing Authority: Pursuant to C.R.S. § 44-3-601(3)(a), Galex, LLC d/b/a Chelitos Mexican Restaurant (“Chelitos”) hereby requests permission to pay a fine in lieu of the fifteen (15) days’ active suspension set forth in the Stipulation recently finalized and accepted in response to the Order to Show Cause dated August 10 and amended on October 12, 2021. For purposes of complying with C.R.S. § 44-3-601(3)(a), Chelitos states as follows: 1.The public welfare and morals will not be impaired by permitting Chelitos to operate during the period set for suspension and the payment of a fine will achieve the desired disciplinary purposes; and, 2.The books and records of Chelitos are kept in such a manner that the loss of sales of alcohol beverages that Chelitos would have suffered had the suspension gone into effect can be determined with reasonable accuracy. We look forward to the acceptance of this petition and confirmation of the stay of our active suspension. Attached to this petition are sales figures for July 1 – 31, 2021 pursuant to Reg. 47- 603(F). These records show total alcohol sales of $16,221.38 for the 31-day period. By my calculations, I believe that this results in a fine of $1,569.81. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please feel free to contact me Runco & Proffitt, P.C. A Colorado Professional Corporation Brian C. Proffitt, Esq. Attachment Brian Proffitt, Esq.* BProffitt@RunProLaw.com *Admitted to Practice in Colorado Page 19 1616 17th Street, Suite 362 720-452-2646 Denver, CO 80202 RunProLaw.com 2 cc: Client Ms. Kristin Brown (knbpc@msn.com) Page 20 Report by day 7/1/2021 to 7/31/21Report by day 7/1/2021 to 7/31/22 Date Super Group Quantity Order Count Gross 7/1/21 ALCOHOL 12 9 $‎112.60 7/1/21 BEER 23 10 $‎99.66 Super Group 7/2/21 ALCOHOL 50 21 $‎460.50 ALCOHOL 7/2/21 BEER 25 14 $‎118.40 BEER 7/3/21 ALCOHOL 72 26 $‎646.95 7/3/21 BEER 47 21 $‎213.79 7/4/21 ALCOHOL 62 29 $‎591.15 7/4/21 BEER 62 24 $‎281.08 5/7/21 ALCOHOL 41 22 $‎396.91 7/5/21 BEER 27 16 $‎123.51 7/6/21 ALCOHOL 34 17 $‎335.98 7/6/21 BEER 11 9 $‎47.70 7/7/21 ALCOHOL 31 19 $‎303.29 7/7/21 BEER 13 11 $‎55.36 7/8/21 ALCOHOL 24 15 $‎241.21 7/8/21 BEER 19 12 $‎82.61 7/9/21 ALCOHOL 59 27 $‎618.51 7/9/21 BEER 6 5 $‎33.22 7/10/21 ALCOHOL 38 21 $‎375.43 7/10/21 BEER 52 22 $‎245.73 7/11/21 ALCOHOL 38 22 $‎367.95 7/11/21 BEER 47 19 $‎256.39 7/12/21 ALCOHOL 29 15 $‎272.45 7/12/21 BEER 32 14 $‎160.99 7/13/21 ALCOHOL 40 25 $‎341.60 7/13/21 BEER 20 12 $‎101.36 7/14/21 ALCOHOL 47 25 $‎450.42 7/14/21 BEER 26 15 $‎126.48 7/15/21 ALCOHOL 29 18 $‎263.15 7/15/21 BEER 15 11 $‎74.95 7/16/21 ALCOHOL 25 14 $‎239.77 7/16/21 BEER 19 11 $‎97.52 7/17/21 ALCOHOL 46 27 $‎423.81 7/17/21 BEER 38 20 $‎195.87 7/18/21 ALCOHOL 37 19 $‎358.51 7/18/21 BEER 26 14 $‎133.72 Page 21 7/19/21 ALCOHOL 34 18 $‎326.54 7/19/21 BEER 22 13 $‎106.02 7/20/21 ALCOHOL 24 14 $‎233.43 7/20/21 BEER 21 11 $‎105.61 7/21/21 ALCOHOL 14 9 $‎147.81 7/21/21 BEER 13 9 $‎60.48 7/22/21 ALCOHOL 31 16 $‎276.57 7/22/21 BEER 21 10 $‎105.61 7/23/21 ALCOHOL 34 22 $‎286.44 7/23/21 BEER 37 21 $‎192.05 7/24/21 ALCOHOL 101 42 $‎964.51 7/24/21 BEER 47 25 $‎252.54 7/25/21 ALCOHOL 36 25 $‎367.04 7/25/21 BEER 31 18 $‎169.49 7/26/21 ALCOHOL 47 25 $‎457.76 7/26/21 BEER 33 15 $‎165.66 7/27/21 ALCOHOL 43 20 $‎390.58 7/27/21 BEER 20 14 $‎111.16 7/28/21 ALCOHOL 24 13 $‎210.78 7/28/21 BEER 18 13 $‎87.31 7/29/21 ALCOHOL 41 22 $‎394.53 7/29/21 BEER 22 13 $‎113.71 7/30/21 ALCOHOL 30 17 $‎275.62 7/30/21 BEER 30 16 $‎157.16 7/31/21 ALCOHOL 59 23 $‎620.93 7/31/21 BEER 42 18 $‎225.73 Total Alcohol + BEER16,053.57$ PLUS WINE $167.81 16,221.38$ Page 22 Quantity Order Count Gross 1232 637 $‎11,752.73 865 456 $‎4,300.84 Page 23       Page 24 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Updates Rocky Mountain National Park Agenda •Overview Timed Entry System 2021 •Proposed Plan for 2022 •Long Term Visitor Use Management Plan •Fire Recovery •Proposed Fee Increases •Fall River Entrance Construction •Campground and Interpretive Programs Page 25 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Timed Entry Permit System Review of 2021 Pilot and Proposed 2022 Pilot Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Use Management Strategy Pilots •Rocky Mountain National Park is one of the busiest national parks, 3rd in 2019 with over 4.6 million visitors •Since 2016, the park has piloted various visitor use management strategies to address the increased visitation and to help lessen increased negative impacts to visitor and staff safety, resource protection, visitor experience and operational capacity: restricting vehicle access on the Bear Lake Road, Wild Basin Area, and Alpine Visitor Center areas when congestion warrants Page 26 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park •These first-come, first-serve restrictions had some limited success initially, but over time began to lose effectiveness: length of time they were necessary kept expanding, impacts were pushed elsewhere, a variety of safety concerns persisted, and visitors were not able to plan their visit •Implemented Timed Entry Permit System pilots in both 2020 and 2021 Visitor Use Management Strategy Pilots Rocky Mountain National Park Highlights and Lessons Learned 2021 Pilot •Separate reservations for Bear Lake Road Corridor (5am-6pm) and “Rest of the Park” (9am-3pm) worked well •Visitors were well spread out throughout the day and the park, better protecting resources and utilizing park infrastructure, avoiding traffic congestion, and improved visitor experience for those in the park •The shorter “Rest of the Park” reservation window aided those without reservations, cross-park travel, local visitors, and spontaneous visits •30% “no-show” reservation rate in June; adjustments were made in early July to account for this by increasing the number of ‘day before’ 5pm reservations Page 27 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Measuring Success of the 2021 Pilot How do we know it’s working: •Tracking visitor use patterns through traffic and trail counters •Adaptive management •Tracking trail impacts: trash, human waste, and visitor-created trails and trail widening •Staff survey •Visitor Experience Survey (Launched in Oct. 2021) Median Vehicles/Day = 3127 Page 28 11/24/2021 Comparisons Across Years Rocky Mountain National Park Proposed 2022 Pilot •Proposing to utilize virtually the same Timed Entry Reservation system from 2021 •Reservations based on ~90% of the parking and transit capacity: approx. 20,000 visitors per day, 7,200 vehicles •Minor adjustments to reservation windows, times and numbers, additional reservations for 5p ‘day before’ sales •Option to purchase entrance pass through recreation.gov •In effect from May 27 through October 10 •Rolling reservations beginning May 2 Page 29 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Long Range Visitor Use Planning Update •Initial Pre-NEPA civic engagement completed in May 2021, public comments and summary report release in Jan 2022 •Complete the established Interagency Visitor Use Management framework •Visitor survey and socioeconomic study in 2022 •NEPA planning process to begin winter 2022/23 •Public comment on draft alternatives in Spring 2023 •Decision document by end of 2023 Page 30 11/24/2021 Fire Recovery Rocky Mountain National Park Fire Recovery Efforts • 25 miles of trails have reopened, 29 miles of the most impacted trails remain closed • Exotic plant monitoring and treatments across burned trails and suppression areas • Monitoring of fish, amphibians, and critical habitat in burned areas • Moving forward with replacing lost structures Page 31 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Proposed Entrance and Campground Fee Increase The park is proposing a $5 increase to the Daily Vehicle Entrance fee (other fees remain the same) Summer fees would increase from $30 to $35 at four park campgrounds Winter campground fee would increase from $20 to $35 per night at Moraine Park Campground Group campsite fees in Glacier Basin Campground would increase by $10 per night – will vary based on size of group https://parkplanning.nps.gov/RMNP_FEES_2022 comments taken through January 7, 2022 Rocky Mountain National Park Fall River Entrance Construction & Water & Wastewater Rehab Page 32 11/24/2021 Rocky Mountain National Park 2022 Campground Operations Interpretive Ranger Programs Questions? Page 33 RMNP Public Comment Fwd: ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT - Tuesday, November 23, 2021 In Person Meeting Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:15 PM RE: 2021 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OVERVIEW AND 2022 PLAN Dear Mayor Koenig: DOI's NPS has made a lifetime agreement with Golden Pass holders. How is it right and just for ROMO to unilaterally abrogate these terms of service? Sincerely, Paul Dianish Fwd: ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT - Tuesday, November 23, 2021 In Person Meeting Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:16 PM RE: 2021 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OVERVIEW AND 2022 PLAN Dear Mayor Koenig: ROMO’s 5:00 A.M. deadline is unduly and unreasonably penalizing and punitive for climbers entering RMNP for access to some of the Park’s highest peaks. Sincerely, Paul Dianish Fwd: agenda item: Superintendent Sidles from RMNP Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM I respectfully ask the trustees to raise the following question with Superintendent Sidles: Why present the 2022 park entrance plan to the trustees prior to the general public? You (Sidles) serve federal taxpayers and the public are at your mercy to gain entrance to RMNP. To the trustees: I ask that you consider how rationing entrance to RMNP affects all the businesses in Estes Park. How many people will choose other destinations for their last-minute plans because they cannot obtain a park reservation at a reasonable time or at all? Further I ask the trustees how Estes Park residents feel about not having ready access to the park that initially drew them to move to the community. About myself: I live in Madison WI, have visited Estes Park/RMNP 20 times in the past 30 years, each stay lasting a week, have friends that reside in Estes Park, subscribe to the Estes Park Trail Gazette, love the park, HATE the reservation system. Sincerely, Kathy J Killian Public Comment received 11-23-2021 by noon Page 34 RMNP Public Comment Fwd: Questions for Board Meeting on Tuesday November 23, 2021 Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:52 PM Gentle persons, I have always enjoyed RMNP for close to 50 years and each time I have stopped in Estes Park. Sometimes it's for a simple cup of coffee or hot coco, sometimes it's for a meal with several friends or family, many from out of state, and frequently it's to shop the local stores. I even drive up to Estes Park just to shop. Had it not been for the beautiful public lands of RMNP on the outskirts of Estes Park I never would've begun shopping in Estes however, my family, friends and I got hooked so to speak. The Parks timed entry system and how it currently operates didn't allow me to visit RMNP at all in 2021. That's a first for me and thus the first time I was not able to, or rather allowed to due to the entry system, support Estes Park local businesses. When you meet with Superintendent Sidles at tomorrow night's meeting I would appreciate it if you would point out the obvious loss of support for local business and ask her specifically what will change in 2022 so you do not lose business. I'm not the only person living in close surrounding areas that have not only enjoyed our public lands but have supported Estes Park. We are the ones who come into town after visiting the park on a year round basis and not just during the summer. If we can't come during the summer than we will find other places to go and in turn go to those places year round so your business will drop off. I for one have been so irritated that I was not able to get into RMNP this year, knowing that the trustees of Estes support the superintendent, that I will not come up this winter and will not do my normal Christmas shopping in Estes this year. Friends who've come up with me will also not be coming. It may appear that loosing a few people won't matter but there are many, many like me who will go elsewhere. There are other places that will welcome us. This is simply the way things happen in life and Estes Parks business owners will suffer. Those people helped elect you and I know I would not be happy if those I elected did not watch out for my best interests. Please ask Ms. Sidles to provide the public with the exact reasons for timed entry as we have not seen any studies proving a need for this system. We have not seen any reports regarding how many support or don't support the timed entry system. Please ask Ms. Sildes why she chose to meet Thanksgiving week when many people who want to attend this meeting are out of town? Please also ask why the public has not been notified of this meeting where by all appearances she intends to announce her decision on times entry for 2022? This effects more than the people in Estes Park. The public is far more wide spread than that and given this is a National Park, it involves notification to everyone in the United States of America. Many people are already traveling across the country this week to be with family so I would seriously like to know why now and greatly appreciate you asking this specific question. I am so sad thinking that this all means RMNP's superintendent will put the same timed entry system into place for 2022 and years to come that we had in 2021, which in turn means I will never again have the freedom to visit the public lands I've loved so much for so long, that I'm on the verge of tears writing this to you. I don't understand why the elected officials of Estes Park who seem to support this,suddenly want me to stay away from Estes Park. To you I have to ask, what did I do that you don't want my business any more? I hope you will respect my request to kindly ask my questions to Superintendent Sidles and also answer my question to you. I don't know what I did to harm you. Regards, Mary Doyle Fwd: Sources for Park visitation and fee numbers Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:55 PM Hi Mayor and Trustees and Travis, Page 35 RMNP Public Comment Hope this finds you well and looking forward to a relaxing Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends. I learned yesterday afternoon that RMNP is on the agenda at tonight's meeting. Glad I found out! I've submitted a public comment on Superintendent Sidles presentation. Below are the links from which I gathered the facts I summarized in my comment. I wanted to provide them to make sure there was no confusion about where I got my information or whether it's accurate. One the 33% increase in visitors over the last ten years (not 44%) and the lowest number of year-to-date visitors to RMNP since 2015: https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Monthly%20Public%20Use?Park=ROMO On RMNP being the only Park in the system with Park-wide reservations required as a matter of visitor use management (not pandemic related): https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/america/national-parks/2021/09/03/national-parks-reservation- requirements-phasing-out-after-labor-day/5682052001/ https://www.fresnobee.com/news/california/yosemite/article254754022.html On Superintendent Sidles having a history of increasing fees to the public for access to public lands (2015 and 2016 in Saguaro, 2018 in RMNP): https://www.nps.gov/sagu/learn/news/news-release-proposed-fee-increase.htm https://www.tucsonaz.gov/ward-2/news/saguaro-national-park-seeks-public-comment-regarding-proposed-user-fee- increase https://www.nps.gov/romo/learn/news/rocky-mountain-national-park-changes-entrance-fee-to-address-infrastructure- needs-and-improve-visitor-experience.htm From your previous communications on this matter, I understand your views and your willingness to go along with the Park's 'pilot projects' at visitor use management. And as always I appreciate you taking the time to engage with me and others who staunchly oppose long-term restrictions on Rocky. The data suggest that reservations are a solution in search of a problem. THe real problem is the Parks' management and available resources. The data also suggest the Superintendent has a history of raising fees for public use while limiting public access to public lands. That's a disturbing trend, especially for locals and retirees who live in (or have moved) to the Estes Valley specifically to enjoy the physical and mental health benefits of being close to RMNP (needed now more than ever). You may also be unaware that in previous communications with me, based on a review of no shows and unused reservations over the summer of 2021, the Park said 20-25% of all reservations made went unused--this while hundreds or thousands of people were turned away at the Park gates. NPS says it compensates this for an 'industry practice' of over-selling the reservations and making more 'last minute' reservations available at 5pm the night before. But surely this defeats the stated mantra of planning your visit to the Park ahead of time. It's the opposite of planning. And it's needlessly keeping tens of thousands of Americans out of the Park when there's plenty of room for them to enjoy its trails, roads, and views. If the Park has had fewer visitors, year-to-date in 2021, then there was no Covid Crush (as they assured us there would be). We didn't need reservations in previous years. We certainly don't need them in 2022. And you need to take a much more sceptical look at the stated reasons why RMNP thinks this is necessary. For example... • Why does RMNP continue to quote a historical 44% increase over ten years when the numbers say otherwise? • Why does RMNP continue to create the impression that National Parks everywhere are implementing similar visitor restrictions when the facts show this is simply not the case? Page 36 RMNP Public Comment • Why are we seeing plans about 2022 when all the public feedback submitted on the long-term plans in July has yet to be made public? I know the Park will say that the 'pilot programs' and 'long term plans' are totally separate and one has nothing to do with the other. But this is a deceptive way of handling the facts. The Park has public feedback on what the people think about reservations. It should make that feedback public now, before any plans for 2022 are finalized. The public should be treated as an equal partner. After all, public lands belong to the people. I have no I idea how advanced (or final) the plans are for 2022. So maybe I'm jumping the gun. But the Park tends to make policy first and ask questions later, when it comes to restrictions. And I believe the data support the conclusion that the justifications for both the timed-entry pilot programs and long-term visitor use management plans don't hold up to scrutiny. I DO think everyone of good faith can agree that the Park needs more resources, better management, and more education of the 'bad actors' that have created the isolated problems NPS has tried to solve with a blanket reservation system that punishes all Americans (the poorest affected the most). Elected officials and legislators are the way to fix this, not higher fees and less access. Let's shift the operational funding burden of RMNP away from visitor fees and toward other sources in the Federal budget. Congressman Neguse and Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper can lead the way. You can do your part, too, by asking the questions that need to be asked. As the largest gateway community to RMNP, you are the only public officials in a position to represent the concerns of your constituents in Estes Park, and indeed all Coloradoans and visitors to RMNP. I sincerely hope you take the chance to do more than listen and directly ask the Superintendent these (and other) important questions. Respectfully, Dan Denning PS Surely you can't make plans for one year without reviewing--in public and transparently--how your system worked the year before. If we end up with another late announcement in the spring of 2022 that reservations are coming back, then I don't think you can conclude the Park is acting in good faith with respect to engaging with the public on long- term management issues. Sorry, one correction. Visitation is up 30.1% from September 2011 to September 2021 (2.92 million to 3.80 million). Not 33% as I originally wrote. Averages out to a 3% increase per year. Certainly manageable...with the right management and operational practices...and without restrictions. Page 37 Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload 11/22/2021 5:33 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Linda Moak Against We found it very difficult to obtain entry permits to the park and we’re disappointed when guests came and we were unable to visit though we are local residents for more than 20 years. We urge the town to not support any further impediments to the park. Respectfully 11/22/2021 5:36 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Alex W Boucher Against I am against the 2022 reservation plan for RMNP. it unjustly restricts access for those that need it the most. 11/22/2021 6:20 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. John Doe Against As a homeowner in Estes, I think the new reservation system keeps non locals out; period. If that is what you want, so be it. Frankly, love my new personal National Park playground! That said, I think it is too bad the Parks don’t scale like Disney to INCREASE and EMBRACE larger numbers to Bear Lake and the Park. Build more entrance kiosks, automated, and how about a new one or two Bear Lake sized new trailheads with parking areas (Forest Canyon?). Heck, most folks just take a simple walk, etc. so why not rebuild the Bear Lake Lodge too. In fact, let’s reinstate bonfires on trail ridge lead by rangers, and while we are at it reopen Hidden Valley Skiing. A natural preserve(?), get real! There needs to be a deep rethink about our Parks and what they are. Those of us that hike early, off into the depths of the park, don’t care about all the people around tourist stuff. But if you still want to keep Americans out, that have paid for everything thru taxes, have at it (: 11/22/2021 6:25 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Jay Detweiler Against I am completely against the requirement of reservations to enter RMNP including the Bear Lake Road. The RMNP is land set aside for all to use and should not be restricted to a select few. The entry restrictions and Bear Lake Road restrictions inacted by the RMNP superintendent violates the very purpose the park was created. Access for all not just a select few. Page 38 11/22/2021 6:47 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Cydney Thompson Against Members of the Board, I have been a resident of Estes Park for 17 years. I am deeply concerned and disappointed in the restrictions placed on travellers and visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park and Estes. As a manager of a business down town , the past two years of the timed entry has been a source of contention with many of my customers. The first year, most were upset, somewhat surprised, yet understanding because it was labelled a " due to Covid" explanation. This past summer, it changed into open hostility. Angered by NOT knowing due to extreme lack of information / advertising, whom were unable to enter at desired times because of the restrictions. They would then turn their efforts of a "visit" to shopping and dining downtown. Only to be met by parking meters. Which further angered them. Confrontational questions and statements such as , " We thought we would take a nice trip here, and we will never come back". I can only see this worsen . 11/22/2021 6:55 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Mary Doyle Against In the past I've enjoyed visiting Estes Park many times throughout the spring summer and fall when I went to RMNP. I was unable to get in to RMNP in 2021 due to timed entry always being full plus an additional cost. I don't like that I wasn't able to support Estes local businesses each and every time I used to go up and I will no long be able to support this beautiful town I've enjoyed the majority of my life if timed entry remains in place. How sad I can't enjoy public lands I've paid into and supported. Trustees of Estes Park, by supporting the Park's superintendent's silent treatment toward the public by passing timed entry without public notices, has told me I'm not good enough for their town after all these years. This is wrong and I desire everyone reconsider reopening our public land, RMNP, to the public. 11/22/2021 7:09 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Carolyn Goers Against I do NOT agree with continued restricted access to RMNP for 2022. It is especially limiting for seniors, handicapped, and Coloradoans who are not able to schedule visits in advance. Restricted reservation systems are especially discriminatory for these groups. Page 39 11/22/2021 7:26 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. 2021 RMNP Overview and 2022 Plan Against Requesting all trustees and the Mayor to call on Superintendent Sidles to resign immediately for unfair, undemocratic and irresponsible management in her position. This meeting is yet another example. The public is given less than 24 hours notice to comment on a presentation that none of us has seen is ludicrous. Additionally, Sidles should resign immediately and suspend the timed reservation system for the following reasons: Asking for more money in entrance fees while making private decisions about public access to the park. Explain the entire "punch pass" Process. Whose idea was this? Who was approved the punch passes? How many were issued? Why? Deceptive and misleading statements as to why a reservation system was needed in the first place. Lack of accountability by refusing to publish public feedback on NEPA until January 2022 AFTER announcing plans. Failure to engage the public in meaningful dialog. Thomas Denning, Lafayette, CO 11/22/2021 8:23 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Dan King Against We have lived in Loveland for 50 years, are nearing 80 years old, and have always been able to take our out of state relatives and friends up to the Park as a special treat. We were turned away twice this year because we couldn't get reservations. It appears some people can make multiple reservations, while others get none because of the restrictions imposed. There should be a way to limit the number of trips so everyone gets an opportunity or two. You should be able to reserve a certain number of passes for local and/or older residents. We also found the reservation system difficult to try to use. 11/23/2021 8:07 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Scott Erwin Against I personally think that the timed entry system for the national park is a bunch of crap especially for the annual pass holders and for Colorado locals as we are a spur of the moment. I actually did not renew my pass this last year because of it, in 2020 we could not get in as much as we usually do because all the tourists took up all the time slots leaving us locals out of our own public park. Which I still don’t agree with paying for in the first place, but this is a whole other issue. I believe as a right we have the right to visit this park when ever we feel like it and not by someone that isn’t even an elected official we the people pay there wages. Also we shouldn’t have to go in line and try and get a time slot to see our beautiful parks. Page 40 11/23/2021 8:35 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Kendra Merriott Against Please consider the comments from people who enter the park to enjoy the sites as well as those who are commuters and use the park to access Grand Lake from Northern Colorado. If a person has a legitimate reason to be entering the park to commute, and can prove they own property they are commuting to, they should not be required to purchase a timed entry permit. RMNP.pdf See attched 11/23/2021 8:41 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Sabrina Crone Against Dear Town of Estes Park Board Trustees: The 2021 restriction system into RMNP is likened to financially shooting yourself, and your town, in the foot. It a great way to kill tourism. I have heard many tourists were not able to enter the Park once traveling from far locations to see this wonder of creation. Why would you do this and adversely affect the income of business owners in Estes Park by allowing tourists' experiences to be soured like this? Tourists will find less restrictive locations to travel to in the future. Also, this is federal land for the people. The sign up system makes our enjoyment of public lands quite restrictive and disallows the freedom to enter the Park whenever we please. Our freedoms continue to be stripped on all levels in this nation; this restriction system is just another set of controls, by unelected officials, to strip us of our free enjoyment of public land. I am against this restrictive system and unnecessary control of access to RMNP. 11/23/2021 8:47 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Patti Albrandt Against Trustees, It's become apparently clear the true meaning of trustee for Estes Park and RMNP isn't valid. As a trustee, you are required to act on behalf of many without pre- determined outcomes. I am strongly against the reservation system for RMNP. This is no longer a Covid excuse. It's about a select few holding court (and ransom) for thousands of outdoor lovers to enjoy the area. I guess it's time for me to take my money to other forested areas and cities in Colorado. Estes Park too will suffer once tourists can't afford to go to the National Park, nor pay to park in their town. Page 41 11/23/2021 9:17 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Dan Denning Against NPS cites the 44% increase in visitor use as justification for reservations. Year-to- date RMNP visitations (through September) are up 30.1% in the last ten yeas (or 3.1% a year), from 2.92m in September 2011 to 3.80m 2021. This year’s September figure is the fewest number of visitors to RMNP since 2015. The Park didn’t need reservations in those years, with greater visitation numbers. It doesn’t need them now. It’s inaccurate and misleading to say other National Parks have similar reservation systems. Reservations at Glacier, Acadia, and Haleakala are for specific roads, parking lots, or locations. Not the entire Park. Only Yosemite had Park-wide reservations in 2020 and 2021. That was Pandemic related only. RMNP raised daily entrance fees by 25% in 2018. It wants another 20% raise in 2021. That’s a 50% increase in fees in four years, more than double the current rate of inflation. Less access + higher fees = not equitable. NPS needs better management, not higher fees and reservations. 11/23/2021 11:11 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Paul Dianish Against DOI's NPS has made a lifetime agreement with Golden Pass holders. How is it right and just for ROMO to unilaterally abrogate these terms of service? 11/23/2021 11:29 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Michael Williams Against For 2021, it seems as though the timeframe (total months) for required reservations was too excessive; it should be limited to our traditional "busy" season (i.e., Memorial Day to Labor Day). The reservation system appeared to work well (9 a.m.- 3 p.m. for most of the park), with the exception of the Bear Lake corridor. For 2022, it is suggested that the timeframe for the Bear Lake corridor be modified from 5 a.m. - 6 p.m., to 7 a.m. - 3 p.m., as well as the timeframe (months) change noted earlier. 11/23/2021 11:48 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Paul Dianish Against ROMO’s 5:00 A.M. deadline is unduly and unreasonably penalizing and punitive for climbers entering RMNP for access to some of the Park’s highest peaks. Page 42 I am a native of Colorado and a property owner in two counties. I own a cabin in Grand Lake that I use seasonally which I access using Trail Ridge Road as my other address is in Northern Colorado. I have to buy a seasonal pass for $70 to access a road and only a road because I a commuter. Having the timed entry system was not a great option for my situation. I should not be denied access when I have purchased a season pass. The timed entry would either be available to purchase months in advance when I have no clue on when I will be using the road or available 24 hours before I need to use Trail Ridge and sell out in 10 seconds. Colorado residents who are season pass holders should be able to bypass the timed entry. If you want to make visitors from out of state use this system when they are planning their trip then that is a more reasonable solution. What you have in place is not working and needs to be adjusted to accommodate Colorado residents or taken away completely and go back to the regular admission standards pre-COVID. Kendra Merriott Page 43       Page 44 Report EVENTS & VISITOR SERVICES To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Rob Hinkle, Events & visitor Services Director Date: 11/23/2021 RE: Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. Financial Report Objective: Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc will give an overview of their 2021 financial report. Present Situation: Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. assists the Town in the management of the annual Rooftop Rodeo and are required to give an annual financial report. Proposal: Nothing proposed. Advantages: Not applicable Disadvantages: Not applicable Action Recommended: No Action Recommended. Finance/Resource Impact: Not applicable Level of Public Interest Low level of Public Interest Attachments: 1.2021 Rooftop Rodeo Presentation to Town Trustees 2.2021 Rooftop Rodeo Advertising Sponsorship Pricing as of May 4 3.2021 Sponsorship Advertising Opportunities as of July 2 FINAL 4.2021 Proposals 5.EPWH Statement Page 45 Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. Attachment 1 Page 46 11/17/2021 INTRODUCTION •The Rooftop Rodeo is owned by the Town of Estes Park, while Estes Park Western Heritage represents the volunteers, the “boots on the ground”. •Considering what our teams had to fight through and plan for over the past year, this was by far the most gratifying week of Rooftop that I have been honored to be a part of. •By every metric, we had one of the best Rooftop weeks ever. •Because of the successes and hard work of a lot of folks, we had our most profitable year ever. •We paid off the Chutes Loan that we took out several years ago that drastically improved the Arena! •The Cowboy Channel carried all six nights of the Rooftop Rodeo live to a national audience (giving our Sponsors and the Town of Estes Park a bright spotlight) and the reviews have been fantastic! += MEET OUR INCREDIBLE 2021 SPONSORS! Page 47 11/17/2021 Page 48 11/17/2021 EPWH Contact Information: Mark Purdy, Board Chairman (970) 481-9512 Chairman@RooftopRodeo.com QUESTIONS? Meet our 2021 Rooftop Rodeo Volunteers! Page 49 Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. Proud Supporters of The Rooftop Rodeo P. O. Box 1852 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 www.rooftoprodeo.com Bronze Silver Gold Platinum Diamond Benefit $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000+ Website link X X X X X 93" X 22" Arena Banner (supplied by Sponsor) X X X X X Social Media X X X X 15 - 20 second Pre-show Video (supplied by Sponsor) X X X X Hospitality entry * X X X Nightly Grand Entry Flag Run (flag supplied by Sponsor) X X X 1 Wagon ride in Grand Entry * X X X Logo on Rooftop Rodeo poster X Number of GA ticket vouchers included * 5 10 15 25 50 (Additional Box seats are $30/night, GA are $20) . *TBD based on rodeo week Covid restrictions 2021 Gold Sponsorships and up will each include one of the following, subject to availability: Rodeo Event Sponsor: weekly (7 available) Out Gate Sponsor: weekly (1 available) Bucking Chute Gate Sponsor: weekly (8 available) Timed Events Gate Sponsor: weekly (1 available) Chutes Bumper Pad Advertising: weekly (1 available) Single Night Rodeo Sponsor: nightly (6 available) Spurs Sponsor: inc. spurs identical to 2021 Rooftop Event Champions (1 available) Behind the Chutes Tour: weekly (1 available) Miss Rodeo America Sponsor: weekly (1 available) Announcer Sponsor: weekly (1 available) Clown and Pickup Men Sponsor: weekly (1 available) *Subject to availability, fulfilled on a first come first served basis Attachment 2 Page 50 Opportunity Name Amount Cash Amount In-kind Amount Stage Type Event Sponsored Bank of Colorado 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Barrel Racing Bank of Estes Park 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Bull Riding Berthoud Land, Ltd. 2021 6000 6000 0 Closed - Paid Cash Rooftop Rodeo Cervi 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Comped In-kind Rooftop Rodeo Cheley 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Bareback Riding Chelitos Mexican Restaurant 2021 3000 3000 0 Closed - Needs Paid Cash Bucking Chute Sponsor Cinch 2021 10000 6000 4000 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Scoreboard; Committee Clothing Discounts Community Hearing Center 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Rooftop Rodeo Cowboy Channel 2021 6000 6000 6000 Closed - Paid Cash Broadcasting Rights Dodge RAM 2021 2550 2550 Closed - Paid In-kind Pickup Men; National Sponsor Dr. Mike Suit 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Veterinary Edward Jones / Mark Purdy 2021 3000 2100 900 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Spurs Sponsor; Bucking Chute Sponsor EP Candy Store 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Single Night of Rodeo - Monday EPWH Inc. 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Rooftop Rodeo Estes Park Health 2021 8000 0 8000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Single Night of Rodeo - Saturday; Ambulance Services; Orthopedic Services Estes Park News 2021 3000 1000 2000 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Advertising Fence Post 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Advertising Gold Buckle Beer 2021 10000 4500 5500 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind The Saloon on the Rooftop Greeley Hat Works 2021 3000 1000 2000 Closed - Needs Paid Cash and In-kind Royalty; Bucking Chute Sponsor; Miss Rodeo America; Committee Hat Discounts Jack Daniels 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid Cash Bucking Chute Sponsor; The Saloon on the Rooftop Kinley Built 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Comped Comped Rooftop Rodeo La Mexicana Grocery 2021 2000 0 2000 Closed - Comped Comped Rooftop Rodeo Lumpy Ridge Brewery 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind The Saloon on the Rooftop Martin Marietta 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Tie Down Roping Nick Molle Productions / Channel 8 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Advertising Park Supply 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Bucking Chute Sponsor Park Village Construction 3000 3000 0 Closed - Paid In-kind Steer Wrestling PRCA 2021 Closed - Comped Comped National Sponsor Prestige Dodge 2021 3000 0 3000 Closed - Comped In-kind Rooftop Rodeo Attachment 3 Page 51 Priefert 2021 1500 0 1500 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind National Sponsor Quality Inn 2021 3000 1000 2000 Closed - Paid Cash Lodging; The Saloon on the Rooftop Rambo Liquor 2021 3000 1500 1500 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Rooftop Rodeo; The Saloon on the Rooftop Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid In-kind Cash and In-kind Mutton Bustin'; Bucking Chute Sponsor Rocky Mountain Resorts 2021 7000 7000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Lodging; Announcer; Clown Rodeo Guess 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Social Media SK Horses 2021 4500 4500 Closed - Paid Cash Saddle Bronc Riding; Bucking Chute Sponsor The Landing at Estes Park 2021 2000 1500 500 Closed - Paid GE Wagon Town of Estes Park 2021 10000 0 10000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Rooftop Rodeo Visit Estes Park 2021 10000 5000 5000 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Team Roping; Social Media; VIP Stage WPRA 2021 Closed - Comped Comped National Sponsor z Big Horn 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Wednesday Night Dinner z Bird & Jim 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind Hospitality - Monday Night Dinner z Cousin Pat's 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Saturday Night Dinner z El Mex Kal 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Tuesday Night Dinner z Ice of Estes 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality Sponsor z Meadow Gold Dairies 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality Sponsor z Smokin Dave's BBQ 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Thursday Night Dinner z The Egg 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Slack Breakfast z West Texas BBQ 2021 Closed - Paid In-kind Hospitality - Friday Night Dinner z YMCA 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality Sponsor 184550 68650 121900 Page 52 Contracting Parties Term Overview 2021 PRCA Rodeo Elements 2021 Cinch Sponsorship Deliverables Mark Purdy Rooftop Rodeo 145 Cherokee Ct. Estes Park, CO 8051 7 (970)48 I -9512 • • • • • • • • • • • • CINCH. JEANS & SHIRTS CINCHJEANS.COM TERM SHEET PRCA Cinch Series Rooftop Rodeo PRCA Properties, CINCH Jeans and Shirts a division of Miller International, Inc . July 5-10, 2021 The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association's and CINCH Jeans and shirt sponsorship was created in 2018 to support local PRCA rodeos and the PRCA circuit system. Sponsorship/investment opportunities are available on a rodeo performance basis. $1,000 to your committee Per Performance. Paid to your Rodeo from PRCA, Properties . Estes Park, CO - 6 rodeo performances. July 5-10, 2021 Four (4) PA Announcements during each performance (content provided by CINCH) Two (2) banners displayed in the arena (CINCH will provide the banners) One (l) :30 commercial spot on thejumbotron if available (ads provided by CINCH) One (1) CINCH branded flag and flag script ( content provided by CINCH) Four (4) premier seats at each performance No competitive jeans or shirts within the series PRCA Properties Ivy Weirather Sponsorship Fulfil�nent Manager 101 Pro Rodeo Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80919 (719)528-4719 CINCH Jeans and Shirts Jessica Wahlert Marketing Manger 8500 Zuni St Denver, CO 80260 (970)324-0980 Attachment 4 Page 53 Contracting Parties Term Overview 2021 PRCA Rodeo Elements 2021 Gold Buckle Beer Sponsorship Deliverables Mark Purdy Board Chainnan 1125 Rooftop Way Estes Park, CO 805 J 7 (970)481-9512 • • • • • • • • TERM SHEET PRCA Gold Buckle Series Rooftop Rodeo -Estes Park, CO •PRCA Properties, Gold Buckle Brand, a division of Miller International, Inc . •One (1) year•Julv 5-10, 2021 •The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association's and Gold Buckle Beer sponsorship was created in 2019 to support local PRCA rodeos.•Sponsorship/investment opportunities are available on a rodeo performance basis . •$750 to your committee Per Performance. Paid to your Rodeo from PRCA, Properties on behalf of Gold Buckle Beer. •Estes Park, CO -6 rodeo performances. Jul y 5-10, 2021 Four (4) PA Announcements during each performance (content provided by Gold Buckle Beer) Two (2) banners displayed in the arena (Gold Buckle Beer will provide the banners) Three (3) barrel covers displayed in the arena during the Women's Barrel Racing (Gold Buckle Beer will provide the covers) Barrelman branding if available (Gold Buckle Beer will provide branding materials) One (1) :30 commercial spot on the video board if available (ads provided by Gold Buckle Beer) Four (4) premier seats at each performance No signage for competitive beer/malt beverage companies within the arena PRCA Properties Tvy Weirather Sponsorship Fulfillment Manager IO I Pro Rodeo Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80919 (719)528-4719 Gold Buckle Beer Jessica Wahlert Marketing Manger 8500 Zuni St Denver, CO 80260 (970)324-0980 Page 54 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ +1 (970) 586-8185Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms P.O. Box 2560 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Billing Address Bank of ColoradoAccount Name Barrel RacingEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Bank of Colorado 2021Quote Name 00000106Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 Rodeo Event Sponsor Barrel Racing $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 55 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ +1 (970) 586-4485Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms P.O. Box 2390 Park Lane at MacGregor Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Billing Address Bank of Estes ParkAccount Name Bull RidingEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Bank of Estes Park 2021Quote Name 00000105Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 Rodeo Event Sponsor Bull Riding $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 56 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms PO Box 1170 3960 Fish Creek Rd. Estes Park, CO 80517 Billing Address Cheley Colorado CampsAccount Name Bareback RidingEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Cheley 2021Quote Name 00000116Quote Number 5/10/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 Rodeo Event Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 57 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ (970) 586-0886Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms Chelitos Mexican RestaurantAccount Name Bucking Chute SponsorEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Chelitos Mexican Restaurant 2021Quote Name 00000103Quote Number 5/6/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second In-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 58 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ +1 (970) 586-2317Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms P. O. Box 2740 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Billing Address Estes Park HealthAccount Name Steer Wrestling; Single Night of Rodeo - Saturday; Ambulance Services; Orthopedic Services Event Sponsored In-kindType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Estes Park Health 2021Quote Name 00000108Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price Diamond Sponsorship Package $10,000.00 1.00 $0.00 Rodeo Event Sponsor Steer Wrestling $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Single Night Rodeo Sponsor Saturday $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Logo on RTR Poster $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 59 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ +1 (970) 586-5800Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms Estes Park NewsAccount Name Rooftop RodeoEvent Sponsored Cash and In-kindType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Estes Park News 2021Quote Name 00000109Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $1,000.20 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 60 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ (970) 353-7300Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms 2613 8th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 United States Billing Address Greeley Hat WorksAccount Name GHW MRA billable expenses not to exceed $1,000. RTR Committee will receive up to $2,000 in total GHW discounts. Special Instructions Royalty; Bucking Chute Sponsor; Miss Rodeo America; Committee Hat Discounts Event Sponsored Cash and In-kindType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Greeley Hat Works 2021Quote Name 00000110Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $1,000.20 Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 61 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms 600 S. St. Vrain Ave Suite #4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Billing Address Kinley BuiltAccount Name Rooftop RodeoEvent Sponsored CompedType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Kinley Built 2021Quote Name 00000112Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Silver Sponsorship Package $2,000.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 62 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms 381 S St Vrain Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 Billing Address La Mexicana GroceryAccount Name Rooftop RodeoEvent Sponsored CompedType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By La Mexicana Grocery 2021Quote Name 00000104Quote Number 5/6/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Silver Sponsorship Package $2,000.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 63 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ (970) 407-3635Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms 1800 North Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 Billing Address Martin MariettaAccount Name Tie Down RopingEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Martin Marietta 2021Quote Name 00000113Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 Rodeo Event Sponsor Tie Down $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 64 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ (970) 586-6305Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms 411 CO-7 Estes Park, CO 80517 Billing Address Park SupplyAccount Name Bucking Chute SponsorEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Park Supply 2021Quote Name 00000111Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00 Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 65 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ +1 (970) 586-8583Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms Rambo LiquorAccount Name Rooftop Rodeo; The Saloon on the RooftopEvent Sponsored Cash and In-kindType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By Rambo Liquor 2021Quote Name 00000114Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $1,500.00 Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 66 Name :______________________ Title: ________________________ Signature:____________________ Date:________________________ +1 970-586-5890Phone Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms P.O. Box 2214 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Billing Address SK HorsesAccount Name Saddle Bronc Riding; Bucking Chute SponsorEvent Sponsored CashType chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail (970) 481-9512Phone Mark PurdyPrepared By SK Horses 2021Quote Name 00000107Quote Number 5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852 Estes Park, CO 80517 United States Company Address Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 2.00 $4,500.00 Rodeo Event Sponsor Saddle Bronc Riding $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00 20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00 Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00 GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00 Quote Acceptance Information Page 67 November 15th, 2021 � ?lctt {g)/1 .4,,r!(!. PO Box 1793 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970)586-9516 Fax (888)456-2106 chris@christianhillcpa.com RE: Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. Dear Staff or to whom it may concern: My firm is engaged by Mark Purdy and Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. to provide bookkeeping services including accounts payable and accounts receivable functions. These services are delivered using information provided by management. To the best of my knowledge this information is complete and financial records are accurate as of the statement date. All bookkeeping services provided to Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. conform to generally ac cepted accounting standards. Very truly, Christian A. Hill Christian Hill CPA, LLC Attachment 5 Page 68 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Date: November 23, 2021 RE: Resolution 83-21 to Approve the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve the “Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding” and associated documents between the Town of Estes Park and the State of Colorado. Present Situation: Nationwide settlements have been reached with the “Big 3” opioid distributors (McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen) and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to resolve claims by state and local governments that these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic. The claims being settled include those raised by local governments in a nationwide class action suit. (More information about these settlements can be found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/.) In October 2021, staff was informed that the Colorado Department of Law came to an agreement with Colorado’s local governments for distributing opioid settlement and recovery funds to local counties and municipalities. The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the product of a lengthy and complex negotiation between the Attorney General’s Office, Colorado Counties, Inc., Colorado Municipal League, and many negotiating local governments detailing that distribution process. To maximize the settlement funds within Colorado, which will be used to help address and abate the opioid crisis, it is important that all Colorado counties and municipalities participate in these settlements and the distribution process by signing the following four documents, attached to this memorandum: Page 69 1. The MOU that lays out the allocation of opioid recoveries in the State of Colorado; 2. The Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that releases subdivisions’ legal claims against Johnson & Johnson; 3. The Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that releases subdivisions’ legal claims against AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson; and 4. The Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement that ensures subdivisions’ legal claims are released only when 95% participation by certain local governments has been reached. That 95% participation threshold is important because it triggers certain amounts of incentive payments under the settlements and signals to the settling pharmaceutical companies that the settlements have wide acceptance. By signing onto the agreement, the Town has an opportunity to participate on our “Regional Council” and determine how funds allocated to the Region (Larimer County) are spent. Alternatively, the Town can sign on and elect to redirect our allocation to the Region and those participating in the Regional Council can make spending decisions on behalf of the Region. If the Board approves the MOU, staff intends to notify the Statewide Abatement Council that we desire to redirect the Town’s share to the Region which we believe is better suited to determine how funds will best be spent to address and abate the opioid crisis. Proposal: Staff proposes that the Board approve the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding and associated documents. Advantages: • Signing onto the MOU will help maximize the settlement funds distributed to the State and ultimately our region. Disadvantages: • None. Colorado will receive its maximum share of settlement payments only if enough local governments sign onto the MOU. Also, the settling defendants have the option to “walk away” from the deal if there is not enough participation. As such, it is important that a “critical mass” of local governments sign on. Action Recommended: Approval of the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding and associated documents. Finance/Resource Impact: Page 70 The Memorandum of Understanding outlines how settlement proceeds would be distributed to the State, regions, and local governments. Based on the allocation breakdown, we believe the amount the Town would be eligible for is approximately $18,000. However, the Town would have to use the funds for purposes approved in Exhibit A of the MOU. Because we do not have existing programs focused on opioids treatment and prevention, we would elect to redirect the Town proportion of funds to our Regional Council. Level of Public Interest Medium Sample Motions: •I move to approve Resolution 83-21. Attachments: 1.Resolution 83-21 2.Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding 3.Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding: Summary 4.Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding: Frequently Asked Questions 5.Settlement Participation Form: Johnson & Johnson 6.Subdivision Settlement Participation Form 7.Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement Page 71 RESOLUTION 83-21 APPROVING THE COLORADO OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the opioid use leading to overdoses and deaths has been declared a nationwide public health emergency; and WHEREAS, nationwide settlements have been reached with the “Big 3” opioid distributors (McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen) and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to resolve claims by state and local governments that these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic; and WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and participating local governments intend to execute the Colorado Opioids Summary Memorandum of Understanding, establishing the manner in which Opioid Funds shall be divided and distributed within the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park desires to sign onto the Memorandum of Understanding in part to help the State maximize its share of settlement payments to help address and abate issues associated with the opioid crisis; and WHEREAS, settlement funds will be allocated to single- or multi-county regions made up of local governments; and WHEREAS, Larimer County has been identified as a single-county Region for the purposes of settlement allocations; and WHEREAS, as a signatory the Town intends to redirect its direct allocation to the Region, which is better suited to determine how funds could best be spent to address and abate the opioid crisis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the memorandum of understanding referenced in the title of this resolution, as well as the associated settlement participation forms and escrow agreement, in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this ______ day of _________________, 2021. Attachment 1 Page 72 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 73 COLORADO OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") Thursday, August 26, 2021 August 25, 2021 Attorney General version A.Definitions As used in this MOU: 1."Approved Purpose(s)" shall mean forward-looking strategies, programming, and services to abate the opioid epidemic as identified by the terms of any Settlement. If a Settlement is silent on Approved Purpose(s), then Approved Purpose(s) shall mean those forward-looking strategies to abate the opioid epidemic identified in Exhibit A or any supplemental forward-looking abatement strategies added to Exhibit A by the Abatement Council. Consistent with the terms of any Settlement, "Approved Purposes" shall also include the reasonable administrative costs associated with overseeing and administering Opioid Funds from each of the four (4) Shares described in Section (B)(2). Reimbursement by the State or Local Governments for past expenses are not Approved Purpose(s). "Approved Purposes" shall include attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in the course of the opioid litigation that are paid through the process discussed below. 2. "County Area" shall mean a county in the State of Colorado plus the Local Governments, or portion of any Local Government, within that county. 3."Effective Date" shall mean the date on which a court of competent jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court, enters the first Settlement by order or consent decree. The Parties anticipate that more than one Settlement will be administered according to the terms of this MOU, but that the first entered Settlement will trigger the formation of the Abatement Council in Section (C) and the Regional Councils in Section (F)(5).1 4."General Abatement Fund Council," or "Abatement Council," shall have the meaning described in Section (C), below. 1 For the avoidance of doubt, the McKinsey Settlement and any other Settlement that precedes the finalization of drafting this MOU are not considered a trigger for purposes of the calculation of"Effective Date." 1 Attachment 2 Page 74 5."Local Government(s)" shall mean all counties in the State of Colorado and the municipalities, towns, and county and city municipal corporations that are listed in Exhibit B. 6."National Opioid Settlement Administrative Fund" shall mean any fund identified by a Settlement for the national distribution of Opioid Funds. 7."Opioid Funds" shall mean damage awards obtained through a Settlement. 8."Opioid Settling Defendant" shall mean any person or entity, or its affiliates, that engages in or has engaged in the manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of licit opioids. 9."Participating Local Government(s)" shall mean all Local Governments that sign this MOU, and if required under terms of a particular Settlement, who have executed a release of claims with the Opioid Settlement Defendant(s). For the avoidance of doubt, a Local Government must sign this MOU to become a "Participating Local Government." Local Governments may designate the appropriate individual from their entity to sign the MOU. 10."Party" or "Parties" shall mean the State and/or Participating Local Government(s). 11."Qualified Settlement Fund Account," or "QSF Account," shall mean an account set up as a qualified settlement fund, 468b fund, as authorized by Treasury Regulations l .468B-l ( c) (26 CFR § l.468B-1 ). 12."Regional Council" shall have the meaning described in Section (F)(5), below. 13."Settlement" shall mean the negotiated resolution of legal or equitable claims against an Opioid Settling Defendant when that resolution has been jointly entered into by the State and the Participating Local Governments, or by any individual Party or collection of Parties that opt to subject their Settlement to this MOU. Unless otherwise directed by an order from a United States Bankruptcy Court, "Settlement" shall also include distributions from any liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code or confirmed plan under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code that treats the claims of the State and Local Governments against an Opioid Settling Defendant. 14."The State" shall mean the State of Colorado acting through its Attorney General and the Colorado Department of Law. B.Allocation of Settlement Proceeds 1.All Opioid Funds shall be held in accordance with the terms of any Settlement. If a Settlement allows Opioid Funds to be held in a National Opioid Settlement Administrative Fund, then Opioid Funds shall be held in such National Opioid Settlement Administrative Fund. If a Settlement does not allow for Opioid Funds 2 Page 75 to be held in a National Opioid Settlement Administrative Fund, Opioid Funds shall be held in a Colorado-specific QSF Account or, under the following limited circumstances, in the State's Custodial Account: 1) if at the time of a Settlement, a Colorado-specific QSF Account is not yet established, although in such case, the Opioid Funds shall be transferred to the Colorado-specific QSF Account once it is established or 2) where the Abatement Fund Council determines Opioids Funds cannot be legally held in a Colorado-specific QSF Account. Regardless of whether Opioid Funds are held in a National Administrative Fund, a Colorado­ specific QSF Account, or in the State's Custodial Account, the Abatement Council shall appoint one of its members to serve as the point of contact in accordance Section (C)(4)(b)(i), below. 2.All Opioid Funds, at the time of a Settlement or at the time designated in the Settlement documents, shall be divided and distributed as follows:2 a.10% directly to the State ("State Share") for Approved Purposes in accordance with Section (D), below; b.20% directly to Participating Local Governments ("LG Share") for Approved Purposes in accordance with Section (E), below; c.60% directly to Regions ("Regional Share") for Approved Purposes in accordance with Section (F), below; and d.10% to specific abatement infrastructure projects ("Statewide Infrastructure Share") for Approved Purposes in accordance with Section (G), below. 3.Distribution of the Shares in Section B(2)( a) -( d) shall be direct, meaning that funds held in accordance with Section B(1) shall be disbursed directly to the State, Participating Local Governments, Regions, and the Statewide Infrastructure Share according to the terms of this MOU. 4.All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be used for Approved Purposes. 5.Participating Local Governments may elect to share, pool, or collaborate with their respective allocation of the LG or Regional Shares in any manner they choose, so long as such sharing, pooling, or collaboration is used for Approved Purposes and complies with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement. C.General Abatement Fund Council 1.A General Abatement Fund Council (the "Abatement Council"), consisting of representatives appointed by the State and Participating Local Governments, shall 2 This MOU treats multi-county health departments as county health departments for purposes of allocation and distribution of abatement proceeds and therefore multi-county health departments shall not receive any Opioid Funds directly. Third-Party Payors ("TPPs") are not Parties to this MOU. 3 Page 76 be created to ensure the distribution of Opioid Funds complies with the terms of any Settlement and to provide oversight of the Opioid Funds in accordance with the terms of this MOU. 2.Membership: The Abatement Council shall consist of the following thirteen (13) members, who shall serve in their official capacity only. a.State Members: Seven (7) members shall be appointed by the State, as authorized volunteers of the State, as follows: (i)A Chair to serve as a non-voting member, except in the event of a tie; (ii)Two (2) members who are licensed professionals with significant experience in substance use disorders; (iii)Three (3) members who are professionals with significant experience in prevention, education, recovery, treatment, criminal justice, rural public health issues, or government administration related to substance use disorders; and (iv)One ( 1) member or family member affected directly by the opioid cns1s. b.Local Government Members: Six (6) members shall be appointed by the Participating Local Governments. Local Government Members shall be a County Commissioner, Mayor, City or Town Council Member, or a professional with significant experience in prevention, education, recovery, treatment, criminal justice, rural public health issues, or governmental administration related to substance use disorders. A Participating Local Government may determine which Local Government Members are eligible ( or ineligible) to serve on the General Abatement Fund Council. County Commissioners, City or Town Council Members, and/or Mayors from the Regions identified in Exhibit C shall collaborate to appoint Local Government Members as follows: (i)Two (2) Members from Regions 1, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18; (ii)Two (2) Members from Regions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16; and (iii)Two (2) Members from Regions 3, 4, 19. c.Terms: The Abatement Council shall be established within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date. In order to do so, within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, the State shall appoint the State Members in accordance with Section (C)(2)(a), and after conferral with the Local Governments, CCI and CML shall jointly appoint six (6) Local Government Members for an initial term not to exceed one year. Thereafter, Members shall be 4 Page 77 appointed in accordance with this Section and Sections (C)(2)(a) and (b) and may serve no more than two (2) consecutive two-year terms, for a total of four (4) consecutive years. Except that, beginning in the second year only, two (2) State Members and two (2) Local Government members shall be appointed for a three-year term and may serve one consecutive two-year term thereafter. The Chair shall have no term but may be replaced at the State's discretion. (i)If a State or Local Government Member resigns or is otherwise removed from the Abatement Council prior to the expiration of their tenn, a replacement Member shall be appointed within sixty (60)days in accordance with Sections (C)(2)(a) and (b). (ii)If a Local Government Member vacancy exists for more than sixty (60)days, the State shall appoint a replacement Local Government Member to serve until the vacancy is filled in accordance with Section (C)(2)(b ). 3.Duties: The Abatement Council is primarily responsible for ensuring that the distribution of Opioid Funds complies with the terms of this MOU. The Abatement Council is also responsible for oversight of Opioid Funds from the Regional Share in accordance with Section (F), below, and for developing processes and procedures for the distribution and oversight of Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share in accordance with Section (G) below. 4.Governance: The Abatement Council shall draft its own bylaws or other governing documents, which must include appropriate conflict of interest and dispute resolution provisions, in accordance with the terms of this MOU and the following principles: a.Authority: The Abatement Council does not have rulemaking authority. The terms of this MOU and any Settlement, as entered by any court of competent jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court, control the authority of the Abatement Council and the Abatement Council shall not stray outside the bounds of the authority and power vested by this MOU and any Settlement. b.Administration: The Abatement Council shall be responsible for an accounting of all Opioid Funds. The Abatement Council shall be responsible for releasing Opioid Funds in accordance with Section (B)(l) for the Regional and Statewide Infrastructure Shares in Sections (B)(2)( c) and (d) and shall develop policies and procedures for the release and oversight of such funds in accordance with Sections (F) and (G). Should the Abatement Council require assistance with providing an accounting of Opioid Funds, it may seek assistance from the State. 5 Page 78 (i)The Abatement Council shall appoint one of its members to serve as a point of contact for the purpose of communicating with the entity holding Opioid Funds in accordance with Section (B)(l) and in that role shall only act as directed by the Abatement Council. c.Transparency: The Abatement Council shall operate with all reasonable transparency and operate in a manner consistent with all Colorado laws relating to open records and meetings regardless of whether the Abatement Council is otherwise obligated to comply with them. (i)The Abatement Council shall develop a centralized public dashboard or other repository for the publication of expenditure data from any Party or Regional Council that receives Opioid Funds in accordance with Sections (O)-(G). (ii)The Abatement Council may also require outcome related data from any Party or Regional Council that receives Opioid Funds in accordance with Sections (O)-(G) and may publish such outcome related data in the centralized public dashboard or other repository described above. In determining which outcome related data may be required, the Abatement Council shall work with all Parties and Regional Councils to identify appropriate data sets and develop reasonable procedures for collecting such data sets so that the administrative burden does not outweigh the benefit of producing such outcome related data. (iii)For purposes of funding the centralized public dashboard or other repository described above, the Abatement Council shall make good faith efforts to seek funding from outside sources first, otherwise the State shall provide such funding. d.Collaboration: The Abatement Council shall facilitate collaboration between the State, Participating Local Governments, Regional Councils, and other stakeholders for the purposes of sharing data, outcomes, strategies, and other relevant information related to abating the opioid crisis in Colorado. e.Decision Making: The Abatement Council shall seek to make all decisions by consensus. In the event consensus cannot be achieved, unless otherwise required in this MOU, the Abatement Council shall make decisions by a majority vote of its Members. The Chair shall only vote in the event of a tie. f.Due Process: The Abatement Council shall develop the due process procedures required by Section (G)(3)(d) for Parties to dispute or challenge remedial actions taken by the Abatement Council for Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council 6 Page 79 shall also abide by the due process principles required by Section (F)( 12)­ ( 13)for Regions to dispute or challenge remedial actions taken by the Abatement Council for Opioid Funds from the Regional Share. g.Legal Status: The Abatement Council shall not constitute a separate legal entity. h.Legal Representation: To the extent permitted by law, the State shall provide legal counsel to State Members for all legal issues arising from those State Members' work on the Abatement Council. At all times, Local Government Members of the Abatement Council are entitled to receive legal representation from their respective governmental entities. In the event of a conflict, the Abatement Council and its members may retain the services of other legal counsel. 1.Compensation: No member of the Abatement Council shall be compensated for their work related to the Abatement Council. D.State Share 1.In accordance with Sections (B)(l) and (B)(2)(a), and the terms of any Settlement, the State Share shall be paid directly to the State in accordance with the terms of this Section (D). 2.The State maintains full discretion over distribution of the State Share anywhere within the State of Colorado, however, the State Share shall be used for Approved Purposes only. The State will work to reduce administrative costs as much as practicable. 3.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, the State shall provide all expenditure data, including administrative costs, from the State Share to the Abatement Council for purposes of maintaining transparency in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require the State to provide additional outcome-related data in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii) and the State shall comply with such requirements. 4.If the State disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it receives from the State Share, the State shall alert the Abatement Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert the Abatement Council within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the State's right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its State Share. E.LG Share 1.In accordance with Sections (B)(l) and (B)(2)(b), and the terms of any Settlement, the LG Share shall be paid directly to Participating Local Governments in accordance with the terms of this Section (E). 7 Page 80 2.Allocations to Participating Local Governments from the LG Share shall first be determined using the percentages shown in Exhibit D. 3.The LG Share for each County Area shall then be allocated among the county and the other Participating Local Governments within it. Exhibit E reflects the default allocation that will apply unless the Participating Local Governments within a County Area enter into a written agreement providing for a different allocation. The Participating Local Governments may elect to modify the allocation for a County Area in Exhibit E, but such modification to the allocation in Exhibit E shall not change a County Area's total allocation under Section (E)(2). 4.A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local Government will not receive a direct allocation from the LG Share. The portion of the LG Share that would have been allocated to a Local Government that is not a Participating Local Government will instead be re-allocated to the Regional Share for the Region where the Local Government is located, in accordance with Section (F), below. 5.In the event a Participating Local Government dissolves or ceases to exist during the term of any Settlement, the allocation for that Participating Local Government from the LG Share shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, be re-allocated to the Regional Share for the Region in which the Participating Local Government was located, in accordance with Section (F). If a Participating Local Government merges with another Participating Local Government, the allocation for that Participating Local Government from the LG Share shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, shall be re-allocated to the successor Participating Local Government's allocation of the LG Share. If a Participating Local Government merges with a Local Government that is not a Participating Local Government, the allocation for that Participating Local Government from the LG Share shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, be re-allocated to the Region in which the merging Participating Local Government was located, in accordance with Section (F), below. 6.A Participating Local Government may forego its allocation of the LG Share and direct its allocation to the Regional Share for the Region where the Participating Local Government is located, in accordance with Section (F) below, by affirmatively notifying the Abatement Council on an annual basis of its decision to forego its allocation of the LG Share. A Participating Local Government's election to forego its allocation of the LG Share shall carry over to the following year unless the Participating Local Government notifies the Abatement Council otherwise. If a Participating Local Government elects to forego its allocation of the LG Share, the Participating Local Government shall be excused from the reporting requirements required by Section (E)(8). 7.Participating Local Governments maintain full discretion over the distribution of their allocation of the LG Share anywhere within the State of Colorado, however, 8 Page 81 all Participating Local Governments shall use their allocation from the LG Share for Approved Purposes only. Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating Local Government to administer its allocation of the LG Share shall not exceed actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government's allocation of the LG Share, whichever is less. 8.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, all Participating Local Governments shall provide all expenditure data, including administrative costs, from their allocation of the LG Share to the Abatement Council for purposes of maintaining transparency in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require Participating Local Governments to provide additional outcome related data in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii) and all Participating Local Governments shall comply with such requirements. 9.If any Participating Local Government disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it receives from its allocation of the LG Share, the Participating Local Government shall alert the Abatement Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert the Abatement Council within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the Participating Local Government's right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its LG Share. F.Regional Share 1.In accordance with Sections (B)(l) and (B)(2)(c), and the terms of any Settlement, the Regional Share shall be paid to the Regions in accordance with the terms of this Section (F). 2.Participating Local Governments shall organize themselves into the Regions depicted in Exhibit C. Municipalities located in multiple Regions may join all or some of the Regions in which they are located according to Exhibit C. 3.Allocations to Regions will be distributed according to Exhibit F. For multi­ county Regions, each Region's share listed in Exhibit Fis calculated by summing the individual percentage shares listed in Exhibit D for the counties within that Region. The percentages in Exhibit F are based on the assumption that every Local Government in each Region becomes a Participating Local Government. 4.In the event a city, town, or other municipality that is a Participating Local Government merges, dissolves, or ceases to exist during the term of any Settlement, the allocation of the Regional Share owed to the Region in which that Participating Local Government existed shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, shall not be modified from Exhibit F. If a county that is a Participating Local Government merges with another county within its Region, the allocation of the Regional Share owed to the Region in which that county existed shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, shall not be modified from Exhibit F. If a county that is a Participating Local Government merges with a county in a different Region during the term of 9 Page 82 any Settlement, the allocation of the Regional Share owed to the Region in which that county existed shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, shall be re-allocated to the Region in which that Participating Local Government merged in accordance with Exhibit F. 5.Each Region must create its own Regional Council while giving consideration to the regional governance models illustrated in Exhibit G. The Regional Council must be formed by the Participating Local Governments within the Region and each Regional Council shall designate a fiscal agent for the Region. Regional fiscal agents shall be county or municipal governments only. All funds from the Regional Share shall be distributed to the Regional Council's identified fiscal agent for the benefit of the entire Region. a.Subject to this Section F(5), each Region may draft its own intra-regional agreements, bylaws, or other governing documents to determine how the Regional Council will operate. However, each voting member of a Regional Council shall be an employee or elected official of a Participating Local Government within the applicable Region. In the case of Denver, the voting members of its Regional Council shall be appointed by the Mayor. In the case of Broomfield, the voting members of its Regional Council shall be appointed by the Broomfield City and County Manager. b.The Region shall not receive any Opioid Funds from the Regional Share until the Region certifies to the Abatement Council that its Regional Council has been formed and a fiscal agent has been designated. Such certification shall be in a simple form adopted by the Region and may be made via email, so long as it includes the names and affiliations of the Regional Council's members and the designated fiscal agent. c.If a Region does not fonn and certify its Regional Council and designate its fiscal agent within one-hundred and eighty ( 180) days of the Effective Date, the Abatement Council shall appoint members to the Region's Regional Council. Regional Council members appointed by the Abatement Council shall serve until the Region certifies the formation of its Regional Council to the Abatement Council. d.A Region shall submit a renewed certification required by Section (F)(5)(b), above, when its membership changes. e.If a membership vacancy exists on a Regional Council for more than ninety (90) days and the Regional Council is unable to fill the vacancy by its regular procedures during that time, the Abatement Council shall appoint a replacement member to serve until the Region fills the vacancy. 10 Page 83 6.A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local Government shall not receive any Opioid Funds from the Regional Share or participate in the Regional Councils described in Section (F)(S) above. 7.Each Regional Council shall make requests to the Abatement Council for Opioid Funds from their allocation of the Regional Share. Each Regional Council's request for Opioid Funds from the Regional Share shall be accompanied by a 2- year plan identifying the Approved Purposes for which the requested funds will be used by the Region anywhere within the State of Colorado. A Regional Council's 2-year plan may be amended so long as such amendments comply with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement. Any Regional Council may seek assistance from the Abatement Council for purposes of developing its 2-year plan. 8.Reasonable administrative costs for a Regional Council to administer its Region's allocation of the Regional Share shall not exceed actual costs or 10% of the Region's allocation of the Regional Share, whichever is less. 9.The Abatement Council shall release funds requested by a Regional Council in accordance with Section (B)(l) if the Regional Council's 2-year plan complies with the Approved Purposes, the terms of this MOU, and the terms of any Settlement. The Abatement Council shall not deny any funding request from a Regional Council on the basis that the Abatement Council does not approve or agree with the Approved Purposes for which a Regional Council requests Opioid Funds from the Regional Share. Nor may the Abatement Council hold up, delay, or make unreasonable requests for additional or supporting information of the Regional Council prior to releasing the requested Opioid Funds. The purpose of this MOU is to facilitate Opioid Funds to their intended recipients quickly and efficiently with minimal administrative procedure. 10.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, each Regional Council's fiscal agent shall provide to the Abatement Council the Regional Council's expenditure data, including administrative costs, from their allocation of the Regional Share and certify to the Abatement Council that the Regional Council's expenditures were for Approved Purposes and complied with its 2-year plan. The Regional Council shall subject itself to an accounting at the Abatement Council's discretion. a.The Abatement Council shall review a Regional Council's expenditure data and certification to ensure compliance with the Regional Council's 2- year plan, the Approved Purposes, and the terms of this MOU and any Settlement. b.The Abatement Council shall publish the Regional Council's expenditure data, including administrative costs, from the Regional Share in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require Regional Councils to provide additional outcome related data in 11 Page 84 accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii) and all Regional Councils shall comply with such requirements. 1 I. If any Regional Council disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it receives from its allocation of the Regional Share, the Regional Council shall alert the Abatement Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert the Abatement Council within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the Regional Council's right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its Regional Share. 12.If the Abatement Council has reason to believe a Region's expenditure of its allocation of the Regional Share did not comply with the Region's 2-year Plan, the Approved Purposes, the terms of this MOU or any Settlement, as described in this Section (F), or that the Region otherwise misused its allocation of the Regional Share, the Abatement Council may take remedial action against the alleged offending Region. Such remedial action is left to the discretion of the Abatement Council and may include but not be limited to, withholding future Opioids Funds owed to the offending Region or requiring the offending Region to reimburse improperly expended Opioid Funds to the Regional Share. 13.Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the Abatement Council being formed, in accordance with Section (C)(2)(c) above, the Abatement Council shall develop and publish due process procedures for allowing a Region to challenge or dispute any remedial action taken by the Abatement Council, including timelines during which the Region may engage in such a challenge or dispute. Such due process procedures shall reflect, at a minimum, the following principles: a.Upon learning of any conduct that may warrant remedial action against a Region, the Abatement Council shall first provide notice to the Region of the conduct at issue, provide the Region an opportunity to respond, and, if appropriate, cure the alleged offending conduct. If after providing the Region such notice and opportunities to respond and cure, the Abatement Council continues to believe remedial action is warranted, the Abatement Council may take such remedial action. b.If the Abatement Council decides to take remedial action against an alleged offending Region, such action may only occur by a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Abatement Council. Thus, an Abatement Council made up of twelve (12) voting members requires a vote of eight (8)Members prior to taking remedial action against an alleged offending Region. c.Prior to taking any remedial action against an alleged offending Region, the Abatement Council shall first provide notice to the alleged offending Region of the remedial action to be taken and the facts underlying such remedial action. The Abatement Council shall then provide the alleged 12 Page 85 offending Region an opportunity to challenge or dispute the remedial action in accordance with, at a minimum, the principles below: 1.The alleged offending Region may request revisions or modifications to the proposed remedial action; 11.The alleged offending Region may submit a written response to and/or request a hearing before the Abatement Council, or a third­ party hearing officer, 3 regarding the alleged offending conduct and proposed remedial action; and 111.After such written responses are submitted and reviewed and/or a hearing is conducted, the alleged offending Region may submit an appeal to the Abatement Council of the decision to take remedial action. d.Remedial actions taken by the Abatement Council, in accordance with the due process principles detailed above, shall be considered final non­ appealable orders and offending Regions may not seek judicial relief from remedial action taken by the Abatement Council, except as provided in Section (H), below. e.Subject to Section (H)(2), below, if any Party(ies) believes the Abatement Council violated the terms of this MOU, such Party(ies) may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU. 14.If the Abatement Council has reason to believe a Region's conduct, or the conduct of any Participating Local Government or individual in that Region, amounts to a violation of any criminal law, the Abatement Council shall refer such matters to the appropriate authorities and may consider such conduct in its determination of any remedial action to be taken. 15.If the Abatement Council has reason to believe that an individual involved in the receipt or administration of Opioid Funds from the Regional Share has violated any applicable ethics rules or codes, the Abatement Council shall not attempt to adjudicate such a violation. In such instances, the Abatement Council shall lodge a complaint with the appropriate forum for handling such ethical matters, such as a local home rule municipality's ethics board. 16.Costs associated with the Abatement Council's distribution and oversight of the Regional Share, as described above in this Section (F), including costs associated with any remedial action by the Abatement Council, shall be paid from the Statewide 3 Only an alleged offending Region may request the appointment of a third-party hearing officer to review any written responses and conduct any requested hearings. If an alleged offending Region makes such a request, the Abatement Council has sole discretion to appoint the third-party hearing officer and the alleged offending Region shall bear the cost of such review and/or hearing by the third-party hearing officer. 13 Page 86 Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council shall make all good faith efforts to limit such costs to the greatest extent possible. G.Statewide Infrastructure Share 1.In accordance with Sections B(l) and (B)(2)(d), and the terms of any Settlement, the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall be paid to any Party or Regional Council in accordance with this Section (G). 2.The purpose of the Statewide Infrastructure Share is to promote capital improvements and provide operational assistance for developing or improving the infrastructure necessary to abate the opioid crisis anywhere within the State of Colorado. The Statewide Infrastructure Share is intended to supplement Opioid Funds received by any Party or Region. 3.Prior to distributing any Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share, the Abatement Council shall establish and publish policies and procedures for the distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share, including processes for Parties or Regions to apply for Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council's policies and procedures shall, at a minimum, reflect the following principles: a.Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall be used for Approved Purposes only; b.Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall be paid directly to the appropriate state agencies (including but not limited to the Colorado Department of Law), Regional fiscal agents, or Participating Local Governments only; c.Distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall comply with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement; d.Appropriate processes for remedial action will be taken against Parties or Regions that misuse Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. Such processes shall include procedures for alleged offending Parties or Regions to challenge or dispute such remedial action; and e.Limitations on administrative costs to be expended by recipients for administering Opioid Funds received from the Statewide Infrastructure Fund, not to exceed actual costs expended by the recipient or 10% of the amount received, whichever is less. 4.The distribution and oversight policies and procedures developed by the Abatement Council, in accordance with Section (0)(3), shall be non-appealable orders and no Party or Region may seek judicial relief related to the distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share. 14 Page 87 5.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, any Party or Regional Council that receives funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall provide all expenditure data, including administrative costs, related to any Opioid Funds it received from the Statewide Infrastructure Share and subject itself to an accounting as required by the Abatement Council. The Abatement Council shall publish all expenditure data from the Statewide Infrastructure Share in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require the Parties or Regional Councils that receive funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share to provide additional outcome related data in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii) and the Parties or Regional Councils shall comply with such requirements. 6.Costs associated with the Abatement Council's distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share, as described in this Section (G), shall be paid for from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council shall make all good faith efforts to limit such costs to the greatest extent possible. H.General Terms 1.All Parties and Regional Councils shall maintain all records related to the receipt and expenditure of Opioid Funds for no less than five (5) years and shall make such records available for review by the Abatement Council, any other Party or Regional Council, or the public. Records requested by the public shall be produced in accordance with Colorado's open records laws. Records requested by the Abatement Council or another Party or a Regional Council shall be produced within twenty-one (21) days of the date the record request was received. This requirement does not supplant any Party or Regional Council's obligations under Colorado's open records laws. 2.If any Party(ies) believes the Abatement Council has violated the terms of this MOU, the alleging Party(ies) may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU, provided the alleging Party(ies) first provides notice to the Abatement Council of the alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation. In such an enforcement action, the alleging Party(ies) may only seek to enforce the terms of the MOU against the State and the Participating Local Governments from which the Local Government Members of the Abatement Council were appointed and may only seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief. In defense of such an enforcement action, the State's Members of the Abatement Council shall be represented by the State and the Local Government Members shall be represented by the Participating Local Governments from which the Local Government Members were appointed. In the event of a conflict, the Abatement Council and its Members may seek outside representation to defend itself against such an enforcement action. 3.If any Party(ies) believes another Party(ies), not including the Abatement Council, violated the terms of this MOU, the alleging Party(ies) may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU in the court in which any applicable Settlement(s) was entered, provided the alleging Party(ies) first provide the alleged offending Party(ies) 15 Page 88 notice of the alleged violation(s) and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation(s). In such an enforcement action, any alleging Party or alleged offending Party(ies) may be represented by their respective public entity in accordance with Colorado law. 4.Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted to waive the right of any Party to seek judicial relief for conduct occurring outside the scope of this MOU that violates any Colorado law. In such an action, the alleged offending Party(ies), including the Abatement Council, may be represented by their respective public entities in accordance with Colorado law. In the event of a conflict, any Party, including the Abatement Council and its Members, may seek outside representation to defend itself against such an action. 5.If any Party(ies) believes another Party(ies), Region(s), or individual(s) involved in the receipt, distribution, or administration of Opioids Funds has violated any applicable ethics codes or rules, a complaint shall be lodged with the appropriate forum for handling such matters, such as a local home rule municipality's ethics board. 6.If any Party(ies) believes another Party(ies), Region(s), or individual(s) involved in the receipt, distribution, or administration of Opioid Funds violated any Colorado criminal law, such conduct shall be reported to the appropriate criminal authorities. 7.Venue for any legal action related to this MOU shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction where any applicable Settlement(s) is entered. 8.Because recovery under the terms of different Settlement(s) may vary depending on the number of Parties required to effectuate a Settlement, the Parties may conditionally agree to sign on to the MOU through a letter of intent, resolution or similar written statement, declaration or pronouncement declaring their intent to sign on to the MOU if the threshold for Party participation in a specific Settlement is achieved. 4 9.This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Parties approve the use of electronic signatures for execution of this MOU. All use of electronic signatures shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-71.3-101, et seq. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the MOU solely because it is in electronic form or 4 For instance, the July 21, 2021 "Distributor Settlement Agreement" includes a "Subdivision Settlement Agreement Form" that, once filled out and executed, is meant to indicate that Local Government's (or Subdivision's) election to participate in that Distributor Settlement and also, to require that Local Government to take steps to formally release any claim it may have against the Settling Distributors. With regard to the Distributor Settlement Agreement or any other Settlements that include a form similar to the Subdivision Settlement Agreement Form, the Parties may still conditionally agree to sign on to the MOU if, for instance, the threshold for Party participation in a specific Settlement is achieved. 16 Page 89 because an electronic record was used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the MOU in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original. 10.Each party represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such Party's execution of this MOU have been performed and that the person signing for such Party has been authorized to execute the MOU. I.Payment of Counsel and Litigation Expenses Through a Back-Stop Fund 1.Some Settlements, including the McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corporation ("Distributor") and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen ("J&J") settlements, may provide for the payment of all or a portion of the fees and litigation expenses owed by Participating Local Governments to counsel specifically retained to file suit in the opioid litigation. If any Settlement is insufficient to cover the fee obligations of the Participating Local Governments (as discussed and modified by Judge Polster's Order of August 6 regarding fees for the Distributor and J&J settlements), the deficiencies will be covered as set forth in further detail below. 2.The Parties also recognize that, as in the Distributor and J&J settlements, certain Opioid Settling Defendants may offer premiums benefiting the entire state of Colorado when Participating Local Governments agree to the Settlement(s), thereby settling their claims in their on-going lawsuits. For example, below is the chart illustrating how Incentive Payment B (a 25% premium to the entire state) works in the Distributor Settlement at Section IV.F.2.b (p. 20): Percentage of Litigating Subdivision Population that is lncenti\'e B Eligible Subdh·ision Incentive Paymcn t 8 Population::;Eli�ibilitv Percentafc Up to 85% 0% 85%+ 301�'0 86+ 40% 91+ 50% 95+ 60% 99%,-95% 100% 100% 3.If the court in In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (N.D. Ohio), or if a Settlement establishes a common benefit fund or similar device to compensate attorneys for services rendered and expenses incurred that have benefited plaintiffs generally in the litigation (the "Common Benefit Fund"), 17 Page 90 and/or requires certain governmental plaintiffs to pay a share of their recoveries from defendants into the Common Benefit Fund ("Court-Ordered Common Benefit Fund Assessment"), then the Participating Local Governments shall be required to first seek to have their attorneys' fees and expenses paid through the Common Benefit Fund. 4.For the Distributor and J&J settlements only, counsel for Participating Local Governments shall have their expenses otherwise recoverable from Colorado Participating Local Governments compensated only through the Common Benefit Fund(s) established in those settlement(s). For the avoidance of doubt, counsel for Participating Local Governments may recover their attorneys' fees through the Distributor and J&J settlements and through the other applicable provisions of this Section (I). 5.In addition, as a means of covering any deficiencies in paying counsel for Participating Local Governments, a supplemental Colorado Attorney Fee Back­ Stop Fund shall be established. The Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund is to be used to compensate counsel for Participating Local Governments that filed an initial complaint in the opioid litigation by September 1, 2020 ("Litigating Participating Local Governments"). 6.Payments out of the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be determined by a committee (the "Opioid Fee and Expense Committee"). The Opioid Fee and Expense Committee shall consist of the following five (5) members: a.One (1) member appointed by CCI from a litigating county or from a litigating county and city municipal corporation; b.One ( 1) member appointed by CML from a litigating city; c.One ( 1) member appointed jointly by CCI and CML from a non-litigating county or city; d.One (1) member appointed by the Attorney General's Office; and e.One (1) neutral member jointly appointed by all of the other members listed above. 7.The Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be funded as follows from any Settlement, excluding settlements involving McKinsey and payments resulting from the Purdue or Mallinckrodt bankruptcy. For purposes only of calculating the funding of the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund, the Parties deem 58% of the total LG Share and Regional Share to be attributable to the Litigating Local Governments. The Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be funded by 8.7% of the total LG Share and 4.35% of the total Regional Share at the time such funds are actually received. No funds deposited into the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund will be taken from the Statewide Infrastructure Share or State Share. 18 Page 91 8.Counsel for Litigating Participating Local Governments may apply to the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund only after applying to the Common Benefit Fund. 9.Counsel for Litigating Participating Local Governments may apply to the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund for only a shortfall -that is, the difference between what their fee agreements would entitle them to (as limited by this Section (I)) minus what they have already collected from the Common Benefit Fund (including both the "common benefit" and "contingency fee" calculations, if any). If they receive fees/costs for common benefit work in the national fee fund, these fees/costs will be allocated proportionately across all their local government opioid clients based on the allocation model used in the Negotiation Class website to allocate the appropriate portion to Colorado clients. 10.Counsel for Litigating Participating Local Governments are limited to being paid, at most, and assuming adequate funds are available in any Common Benefit Fund and Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund, fees in an amount equal to 15% of the LG Share and 7.5% of the Regional Share attributable to their Colorado clients. 11.Any funds remaining in the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund in excess of the amounts needed to cover the fees and litigation expenses owed by Litigating Participating Local Governments to their respective counsel shall revert to the Participating Local Governments according to the allocations described in Sections (E) and (F). Every two years, the Opioid Fee and Expense Committee shall assess the amount remaining in the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund to determine if it is overfunded. 12.Despite the fact that a litigating entity bonus benefits the entire state, no portion of the State Share shall be used to fund the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund or in any other way to fund any Participating Local Government's attorneys' fees and expenses. Because the state did not hire outside counsel, any funds for attorneys fees that the state receives from the J&J and Distributor settlement will be deposited into the State Share. 13.To participate in the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund, counsel must follow the requirements of C.R.S. § 13-17-304. 19 Page 92 This Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding is signed this a� day of Au�u� , � by: ney General Philip J. Weiser 20 Page 93 21 This Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding is signed this ___ day of _____________, _____ by: ______________________________________________ Name & Title___________________________________ On behalf of ___________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Town Attorney Page 94 Exhibit A Page 95 POTENTIAL OPIOID ABATEMENT APPROVED PURPOSES I.TREATMENT A.TREATMENT OF OPIOID USE DISORDER AND ITS EFFECTS 1.Expand availability of treatment, including Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT), for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring substance use or mental health issues. 2.Supportive housing, all forms of FDA-approved MAT, counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential treatment with access to medications for those who need it. 3.Treatment of mental health trauma issues that resulted from the traumatic experiences of the opioid user (e.g., violence, sexual assault, human trafficking) and for family members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose or overdose fatality). 4.Expand telehealth to increase access to OUD treatment, including MAT, as well as counseling, psychiatric support, and other treatment and recovery support services. 5.Fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care, instructors, and clinical research for treatments. 6.Scholarships for certified addiction counselors. 7.Clinicians to obtain training and a waiver under the federal Drug Addiction Treatment Act to prescribe MAT for OUD. 8.Training for health care providers, students, and other supporting professionals, such as peer recovery coaches/recovery outreach specialists, including but not limited to training relating to MAT and harm reduction. 9.Dissemination of accredited web-based training curricula, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service-Opioids web-based training curriculum and motivational interviewing. 10.Development and dissemination of new accredited curricula, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service Medication-Assisted Treatment. 11.Development of a multistate/nationally accessible database whereby health care providers can list currently available in-patient and out-patient OUD treatment services that are accessible on a real-time basis. EXHIBIT APage 96 12.Support and reimburse services that include the full American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) continuum of care for OUD. 13.Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to assure evidence- informed practices such as adequate methadone dosing. B.INTERVENTION 1.Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer, if necessary) a patient for OUD treatment. 2.Fund Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs to reduce the transition from use to disorder. 3.Training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health, schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on the late adolescence and young adulthood when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is most common. 4.Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the technology. 5.Training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients on post- discharge planning, including community referrals for MAT, recovery case management and/or support services. 6.Support work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support specialists, to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services following an opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse event. 7.Create school-based contacts whom parents can engage to seek immediate treatment services for their child. 8.Develop best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace. 9.Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD. 10.Engage non-profits and faith community as a system to support outreach for treatment. C.CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS 1.Address the needs of persons involved in the criminal justice system who have OUD and any co-occurring substance use disorders or mental health (SUD/MH) issues. EXHIBIT APage 97 2.Support pre-arrest diversion and deflection strategies for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH issues, including established strategies such as: a.Self-referral strategies such as Angel Programs or the Police Assisted Addiction Recovery Initiative (PAARI); b.Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team (DART) model; c.“Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who have received Naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then linked to treatment programs; d.Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) model; or e.Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult Civil Citation Network. 3.Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH issues to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, and related services. 4.Support treatment and recovery courts for persons with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH issues, but only if they provide referrals to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT. 5.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, harm reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH issues who are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. 6.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, harm reduction, or other appropriate re-entry services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH issues who are leaving jail or prison or who have recently left jail or prison. 7.Support critical time interventions (CTI), particularly for individuals living with dual-diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional settings. D.WOMEN WHO ARE OR MAY BECOME PREGNANT 1.Evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery, and prevention services for pregnant women or women who could become pregnant and have OUD. 2.Training for obstetricians and other healthcare personnel that work with pregnant women and their families regarding OUD treatment. EXHIBIT APage 98 3.Other measures to address Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, including prevention, care for addiction and education programs. 4.Child and family supports for parenting women with OUD. 5.Enhanced family supports and child care services for parents receiving treatment for OUD. E.PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY 1.The full continuum of care of recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring substance use or mental health issues, including supportive housing, residential treatment, medical detox services, peer support services and counseling, community navigators, case management, and connections to community-based services. 2.Identifying successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college recovery programs, and providing support and technical assistance to increase the number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery. 3.Training and development of procedures for government staff to appropriately interact and provide social and other services to current and recovering opioid users, including reducing stigma. 4.Community-wide stigma reduction regarding treatment and support for persons with OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment. 5.Engaging non-profits and faith community as a system to support family members in their efforts to help the opioid user in the family. II.PREVENTION F.PRESCRIBING PRACTICES 1.Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids. 2.Academic counter-detailing. 3.Continuing Medical Education (CME) on prescribing of opioids. 4.Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training providers to offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain. 5.Fund development of a multistate/national prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) that permits information sharing while providing appropriate safeguards on sharing of private information, including but not limited to: EXHIBIT APage 99 a.Integration of PDMP data with electronic health records, overdose episodes, and decision support tools for health care providers relating to OUD. b.Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data, including the United States Department of Transportation’s Emergency Medical Technician overdose database. 6.Educating dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing. G.MISUSE OF OPIOIDS 1.Corrective advertising/affirmative public education campaigns. 2.Public education relating to drug disposal. 3.Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs. 4.Fund community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug-abuse prevention efforts. 5.School-based programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in preventing the uptake and use of opioids. 6.Support community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention, such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction – including staffing, educational campaigns, or training of coalitions in evidence-informed implementation. 7.School and community education programs and campaigns for students, families, school employees, school athletic programs, parent-teacher and student associations, and others. 8.Engaging non-profits and faith community as a system to support prevention. H.OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS 1.Increasing availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses to first responders, overdose patients, opioid users, families and friends of opioid users, schools, community navigators and outreach workers, drug offenders upon release from jail/prison, and other members of the general public. 2.Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools, and other members of the general public. EXHIBIT APage 100 3.Developing data tracking software and applications for overdoses/naloxone revivals. 4.Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses. 5.Free naloxone for anyone in the community. 6.Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws. 7.Educating first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and Good Samaritan laws. 8.Syringe service programs, including supplies, staffing, space, peer support services, and the full range of harm reduction and treatment services provided by these programs. 9.Expand access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use. III.ADDITIONAL AREAS I.SERVICES FOR CHILDREN 1.Support for children’s services: Fund additional positions and services, including supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children being removed from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid use. J.FIRST RESPONDERS 1.Law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic. 2.Educating first responders regarding appropriate practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs. 3.Increase electronic prescribing to prevent diversion and forgery. K.COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP 1.Regional planning to identify goals for opioid reduction and support efforts or to identify areas and populations with the greatest needs for treatment intervention services. 2.Government dashboard to track key opioid-related indicators and supports as identified through collaborative community processes. EXHIBIT APage 101 L.STAFFING AND TRAINING 1.Funding for programs and services regarding staff training and networking to improve staff capability to abate the opioid crisis. 2.Support infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-systems coordination to prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD (e.g., health care, primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.). M.RESEARCH 1.Funding opioid abatement research. 2.Research improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to OUD. 3.Support research for novel harm reduction and prevention efforts such as the provision of fentanyl test strips. 4.Support for innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids. 5.Expanded research for swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid misuse within criminal justice populations that build upon promising approaches used to address other substances (e.g. Hawaii HOPE and Dakota 24/7). 6.Research expanded modalities such as prescription methadone that can expand access to MAT. N.OTHER 1.Administrative costs for any of the approved purposes on this list. 4828-8658-5793, v. 8 EXHIBIT APage 102 Exhibit B Page 103 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Adams County Adams County Arvada Adams City 2 counties Aurora Adams City 3 counties Bennett Adams City 2 counties Brighton Adams City 2 counties Commerce City Adams City Federal Heights Adams City Lochbuie Adams City 2 counties Northglenn Adams City 2 counties Thornton Adams City 2 counties Westminster Adams City 2 counties Alamosa County Alamosa County Alamosa Alamosa City Hooper Alamosa City Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Aurora Arapahoe City 3 counties Bennett Arapahoe City 2 counties Bow Mar Arapahoe City 2 counties Centennial Arapahoe City Cherry Hills Village Arapahoe City Columbine Valley Arapahoe City Deer Trail Arapahoe City Englewood Arapahoe City Foxfield Arapahoe City Glendale Arapahoe City Greenwood Village Arapahoe City Littleton Arapahoe City 3 counties Sheridan Arapahoe City Archuleta County Archuleta County Pagosa Springs Archuleta City Baca County Baca County Campo Baca City Pritchett Baca City Springfield Baca City Two Buttes Baca City Vilas Baca City Walsh Baca City Bent County Bent County Las Animas Bent City Boulder County Boulder County Boulder Boulder City Erie Boulder City 2 counties Jamestown Boulder City Lafayette Boulder City 1 EXHIBIT BPage 104 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Longmont Boulder City 2 counties Louisville Boulder City Lyons Boulder City Nederland Boulder City Superior Boulder City 2 counties Ward Boulder City Broomfield Broomfield City/County Chaffee County Chaffee County Buena Vista Chaffee City Poncha Springs Chaffee City Salida Chaffee City Cheyenne County Cheyenne County Cheyenne Wells Cheyenne City Kit Carson Cheyenne City Clear Creek County Clear Creek County Central City Clear Creek City 2 counties Empire Clear Creek City Georgetown Clear Creek City Idaho Springs Clear Creek City Silver Plume Clear Creek City Conejos County Conejos County Antonito Conejos City La Jara Conejos City Manassa Conejos City Romeo Conejos City Sanford Conejos City Costilla County Costilla County Blanca Costilla City San Luis Costilla City Crowley County Crowley County Crowley Crowley City Olney Springs Crowley City Ordway Crowley City Sugar City Crowley City Custer County Custer County Silver Cliff Custer City Westcliffe Custer City Delta County Delta County Cedaredge Delta City Crawford Delta City Delta Delta City Hotchkiss Delta City Orchard City Delta City Paonia Delta City 2 EXHIBIT BPage 105 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Denver Denver City/County Dolores County Dolores County Dove Creek Dolores City Rico Dolores City Douglas County Douglas County Aurora Douglas City 3 counties Castle Pines Douglas City Castle Rock Douglas City Larkspur Douglas City Littleton Douglas City 3 counties Lone Tree Douglas City Parker Douglas City Eagle County Eagle County Avon Eagle City Basalt Eagle City 2 counties Eagle Eagle City Gypsum Eagle City Minturn Eagle City Red Cliff Eagle City Vail Eagle City El Paso County El Paso County Calhan El Paso City Colorado Springs El Paso City Fountain El Paso City Green Mountain Falls El Paso City 2 counties Manitou Springs El Paso City Monument El Paso City Palmer Lake El Paso City Ramah El Paso City Elbert County Elbert County Elizabeth Elbert City Kiowa Elbert City Simla Elbert City Fremont County Fremont County Brookside Fremont City Cañon City Fremont City Coal Creek Fremont City Florence Fremont City Rockvale Fremont City Williamsburg Fremont City Garfield County Garfield County Carbondale Garfield City Glenwood Springs Garfield City New Castle Garfield City 3 EXHIBIT BPage 106 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Parachute Garfield City Rifle Garfield City Silt Garfield City Gilpin County Gilpin County Black Hawk Gilpin City Central City Gilpin City 2 counties Grand County Grand County Fraser Grand City Granby Grand City Grand Lake Grand City Hot Sulphur Springs Grand City Kremmling Grand City Winter Park Grand City Gunnison County Gunnison County Crested Butte Gunnison City Gunnison Gunnison City Marble Gunnison City Mount Crested Butte Gunnison City Pitkin Gunnison City Hinsdale County Hinsdale County Lake City Hinsdale City Huerfano County Huerfano County La Veta Huerfano City Walsenburg Huerfano City Jackson County Jackson County Walden Jackson City Jefferson County Jefferson County Arvada Jefferson City 2 counties Bow Mar Jefferson City 2 counties Edgewater Jefferson City Golden Jefferson City Lakeside Jefferson City Lakewood Jefferson City Littleton Jefferson City 3 counties Morrison Jefferson City Mountain View Jefferson City Superior Jefferson City 2 counties Westminster Jefferson City 2 counties Wheat Ridge Jefferson City Kiowa County Kiowa County Eads Kiowa City Haswell Kiowa City Sheridan Lake Kiowa City Kit Carson County Kit Carson County 4 EXHIBIT BPage 107 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Bethune Kit Carson City Burlington Kit Carson City Flagler Kit Carson City Seibert Kit Carson City Stratton Kit Carson City Vona Kit Carson City La Plata County La Plata County Bayfield La Plata City Durango La Plata City Ignacio La Plata City Lake County Lake County Leadville Lake City Larimer County Larimer County Berthoud Larimer City 2 counties Estes Park Larimer City Fort Collins Larimer City Johnstown Larimer City 2 counties Loveland Larimer City Timnath Larimer City 2 counties Wellington Larimer City Windsor Larimer City 2 counties Las Animas County Las Animas County Aguilar Las Animas City Branson Las Animas City Cokedale Las Animas City Kim Las Animas City Starkville Las Animas City Trinidad Las Animas City Lincoln County Lincoln County Arriba Lincoln City Genoa Lincoln City Hugo Lincoln City Limon Lincoln City Logan County Logan County Crook Logan City Fleming Logan City Iliff Logan City Merino Logan City Peetz Logan City Sterling Logan City Mesa County Mesa County Collbran Mesa City De Beque Mesa City Fruita Mesa City 5 EXHIBIT BPage 108 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Grand Junction Mesa City Palisade Mesa City Mineral County Mineral County City of Creede Mineral City Moffat County Moffat County Craig Moffat City Dinosaur Moffat City Montezuma County Montezuma County Cortez Montezuma City Dolores Montezuma City Mancos Montezuma City Montrose County Montrose County Montrose Montrose City Naturita Montrose City Nucla Montrose City Olathe Montrose City Morgan County Morgan County Brush Morgan City Fort Morgan Morgan City Hillrose Morgan City Log Lane Village Morgan City Wiggins Morgan City Otero County Otero County Cheraw Otero City Fowler Otero City La Junta Otero City Manzanola Otero City Rocky Ford Otero City Swink Otero City Ouray County Ouray County Ouray Ouray City Ridgway Ouray City Park County Park County Alma Park City Fairplay Park City Phillips County Phillips County Haxtun Phillips City Holyoke Phillips City Paoli Phillips City Pitkin County Pitkin County Aspen Pitkin City Basalt Pitkin City 2 counties Snowmass Village Pitkin City Prowers County Prowers County 6 EXHIBIT BPage 109 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Granada Prowers City Hartman Prowers City Holly Prowers City Lamar Prowers City Wiley Prowers City Pueblo County Pueblo County Boone Pueblo City Pueblo Pueblo City Rye Pueblo City Rio Blanco County Rio Blanco County Meeker Rio Blanco City Rangely Rio Blanco City Rio Grande County Rio Grande County Center Rio Grande City 2 counties Del Norte Rio Grande City Monte Vista Rio Grande City South Fork Rio Grande City Routt County Routt County Hayden Routt City Oak Creek Routt City Steamboat Springs Routt City Yampa Routt City Saguache County Saguache County Bonanza Saguache City Center Saguache City 2 counties Crestone Saguache City Moffat Saguache City Saguache Saguache City San Juan County San Juan County Silverton San Juan City San Miguel County San Miguel County Mountain Village San Miguel City Norwood San Miguel City Ophir San Miguel City Sawpit San Miguel City Telluride San Miguel City Sedgwick County Sedgwick County Julesburg Sedgwick City Ovid Sedgwick City Sedgwick Sedgwick City Summit County Summit County Blue River Summit City Breckenridge Summit City Dillon Summit City 7 EXHIBIT BPage 110 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Frisco Summit City Montezuma Summit City Silverthorne Summit City Teller County Teller County Cripple Creek Teller City Green Mountain Falls Teller City 2 counties Victor Teller City Woodland Park Teller City Washington County Washington County Akron Washington City Otis Washington City Weld County Weld County Ault Weld City Berthoud Weld City 2 counties Brighton Weld City 2 counties Dacono Weld City Eaton Weld City Erie Weld City 2 counties Evans Weld City Firestone Weld City Fort Lupton Weld City Frederick Weld City Garden City Weld City Gilcrest Weld City Greeley Weld City Grover Weld City Hudson Weld City Johnstown Weld City 2 counties Keenesburg Weld City Kersey Weld City La Salle Weld City Lochbuie Weld City 2 counties Longmont Weld City 2 counties Mead Weld City Milliken Weld City Northglenn Weld City 2 counties Nunn Weld City Pierce Weld City Platteville Weld City Raymer (New Raymer)Weld City Severance Weld City Thornton Weld City 2 counties Timnath Weld City 2 counties Windsor Weld City 2 counties 8 EXHIBIT BPage 111 Colorado Local Governments* Government Name County Gov't Type Multi- County Yuma County Yuma County Eckley Yuma City Wray Yuma City Yuma Yuma City *This list includes all 64 Colorado counties and all 271 municipalities listed in the 2019 Census. Cities located in multiple counties are listed under each corresponding county subheading. City and County of Denver and City and County of Broomfield are counted in both the city and county totals. The City of Carbonate is not included in this list, as there was no population in the 2019 Census data. 9 This list will be reconciled as necessary to be consistent with the terms of Settlement(s) with Opioid Settling Defendant(s) EXHIBIT BPage 112 Exhibit C Page 113 EXHIBIT CPage 114 Exhibit D Page 115 Exhibit D - Allocations to Colorado County Areas County Percentage of LG Share Adams 9.4247% Alamosa 0.5081% Arapahoe 10.8071% Archuleta 0.1370% Baca 0.0592% Bent 0.1133% Boulder 5.7936% Broomfield 1.0014% Chaffee 0.3604% Cheyenne 0.0159% Clear Creek 0.1380% Conejos 0.2108% Costilla 0.0552% Crowley 0.0934% Custer 0.0412% Delta 0.5440% Denver 15.0042% Dolores 0.0352% Douglas 3.6696% Eagle 0.6187% El Paso 11.9897% Elbert 0.2804% Fremont 0.9937% Garfield 0.8376% Gilpin 0.0561% Grand 0.2037% Gunnison 0.1913% Hinsdale 0.0112% Huerfano 0.2505% Jackson 0.0310% Jefferson 10.5173% Kiowa 0.0142% Kit Carson 0.0940% La Plata 0.8127% Lake 0.0990% Larimer 6.5211% Las Animas 0.6304% Lincoln 0.0819% Logan 0.3815% Mesa 2.8911% Mineral 0.0039% Moffat 0.2326% Montezuma 0.4429% Page 1 EXHIBIT DPage 116 Montrose 0.5695% Morgan 0.4677% Otero 0.4486% Ouray 0.0535% Park 0.1674% Phillips 0.0714% Pitkin 0.1747% Prowers 0.1727% Pueblo 5.6757% Rio Blanco 0.1013% Rio Grande 0.2526% Routt 0.3837% Saguache 0.0666% San Juan 0.0097% San Miguel 0.1005% Sedgwick 0.0618% Summit 0.3761% Teller 0.6219% Washington 0.0357% Weld 3.8908% Yuma 0.0992% TOTAL 100.0000% Page 2 EXHIBIT DPage 117 Exhibit E Page 118 Government Name Intracounty Share Adams County 68.3372% Arvada (2 Counties)0.2632% Aurora (3 Counties)4.6336% Bennett (2 Counties)0.1670% Brighton (2 Counties)1.4527% Commerce City 4.7314% Federal Heights 1.1457% Lochbuie (2 Counties)0.0001% Northglenn (2 Counties)2.0913% Thornton (2 Counties)10.6435% Westminster (2 Counties)6.5342% Alamosa County 85.3075% Alamosa 14.6818% Hooper 0.0108% Arapahoe County 42.7003% Aurora (3 Counties)35.5997% Bennett (2 Counties)0.0324% Bow Mar (2 Counties)0.0159% Centennial 0.4411% Cherry Hills Village 0.6685% Columbine Valley 0.1601% Deer Trail 0.0003% Englewood 5.5850% Foxfield 0.0372% Glendale 1.2289% Greenwood Village 2.8305% Littleton (3 Counties)8.5654% Sheridan 2.1347% Archuleta County 90.0864% Pagosa Springs 9.9136% Baca County 85.9800% Campo 2.4443% Pritchett 1.5680% Springfield 7.0100% Exhibit E - Intracounty Allocations1,2 The below chart depicts the default percentage that each Local Government will receive from the LG Share amount attributed to its County Area, as described in Section (E)(3) of the MOU. The chart assumes full participation by all Local Governments Page 1 EXHIBIT EPage 119 Government Name Intracounty Share Two Buttes 0.4766% Vilas 0.9070% Walsh 1.6141% Bent County 80.9608% Las Animas 19.0392% Boulder County 47.6311% Boulder 31.7629% Erie (2 Counties)0.3634% Jamestown 0.0086% Lafayette 3.3203% Longmont (2 Counties)14.6833% Louisville 1.4455% Lyons 0.5916% Nederland 0.1646% Superior (2 Counties)0.0258% Ward 0.0030% Broomfield County/City 100.0000% Chaffee County 74.8440% Buena Vista 5.8841% Poncha Springs 4.2369% Salida 15.0350% Cheyenne County 66.8002% Cheyenne Wells 0.8586% Kit Carson 32.3412% Clear Creek County 92.2164% Central City (2 Counties)0.0000% Empire 0.3364% Georgetown 1.9063% Idaho Springs 4.7625% Silver Plume 0.7784% Conejos County 77.1204% Antonito 4.6338% La Jara 2.4313% Manassa 1.0062% Romeo 2.4270% Sanford 12.3812% Page 2 EXHIBIT EPage 120 Government Name Intracounty Share Costilla County 97.3454% Blanca 1.2036% San Luis 1.4509% Crowley County 80.7081% Crowley 4.3597% Olney Springs 8.3683% Ordway 0.1853% Sugar City 6.3786% Custer County 96.6858% Silver Cliff 0.7954% Westcliffe 2.5188% Delta County 76.3512% Cedaredge 3.6221% Crawford 0.4938% Delta 16.2658% Hotchkiss 1.0963% Orchard City 0.1473% Paonia 2.0236% Denver County/City 100.0000% Dolores County 76.3307% Dove Creek 17.3127% Rico 6.3566% Douglas County 71.8404% Aurora (3 Counties)0.2099% Castle Pines 0.2007% Castle Rock 13.5204% Larkspur 0.0856% Littleton (3 Counties)0.0156% Lone Tree 5.2786% Parker 8.8487% Eagle County 60.8236% Avon 7.6631% Basalt (2 Counties)2.2311% Eagle 3.1376% Gypsum 1.7469% Minturn 0.7771% Page 3 EXHIBIT EPage 121 Government Name Intracounty Share Red Cliff 0.0957% Vail 23.5250% El Paso County 18.4181% Calhan 0.0228% Colorado Springs 80.1161% Fountain 0.9892% Green Mountain Falls (2 Counties)0.0149% Manitou Springs 0.2411% Monument 0.1492% Palmer Lake 0.0455% Ramah 0.0033% Elbert County 86.5840% Elizabeth 10.2633% Kiowa 1.5455% Simla 1.6072% Fremont County 60.7882% Brookside 0.0348% Cañon City 30.9017% Coal Creek 0.0476% Florence 8.0681% Rockvale 0.0687% Williamsburg 0.0907% Garfield County 76.3371% Carbondale 2.4698% Glenwood Springs 11.8141% New Castle 1.4295% Parachute 1.0653% Rifle 5.2733% Silt 1.6110% Gilpin County 46.8613% Black Hawk 46.3909% Central City (2 Counties)6.7478% Grand County 80.1046% Fraser 2.4903% Granby 5.4008% Grand Lake 0.3174% Hot Sulphur Springs 0.1431% Kremmling 2.9284% Page 4 EXHIBIT EPage 122 Government Name Intracounty Share Winter Park 8.6154% Gunnison County 88.9185% Crested Butte 2.3562% Gunnison 5.9501% Marble 0.1714% Mount Crested Butte 2.5657% Pitkin 0.0381% Hinsdale County 76.0940% Lake City 23.9060% Huerfano County 68.2709% La Veta 11.0719% Walsenburg 20.6572% Jackson County 61.5339% Walden 38.4661% Jefferson County 58.2140% Arvada (2 Counties)11.9733% Bow Mar (2 Counties)0.0087% Edgewater 0.6604% Golden 3.4815% Lakeside 0.0030% Lakewood 15.9399% Littleton (3 Counties)0.6176% Morrison 0.2205% Mountain View 0.1344% Superior (2 Counties)0.0000% Westminster (2 Counties)5.4779% Wheat Ridge 3.2689% Kiowa County 93.2138% Eads 5.3777% Haswell 0.6402% Sheridan Lake 0.7682% Kit Carson County 86.3178% Bethune 0.1841% Burlington 12.0640% Flagler 0.4264% Seibert 0.0291% Stratton 0.9012% Page 5 EXHIBIT EPage 123 Government Name Intracounty Share Vona 0.0775% La Plata County 66.8874% Bayfield 1.6292% Durango 29.2985% Ignacio 2.1849% Lake County 73.4523% Leadville 26.5477% Larimer County 56.0589% Berthoud (2 Counties)0.4139% Estes Park 0.3502% Fort Collins 18.5702% Johnstown (2 Counties)0.0711% Loveland 23.4493% Timnath (2 Counties)0.2964% Wellington 0.3653% Windsor (2 Counties)0.4248% Las Animas County 77.8076% Aguilar 0.0751% Branson 0.0101% Cokedale 0.0188% Kim 0.0101% Starkville 0.0087% Trinidad 22.0696% Lincoln County 91.3222% Arriba 0.3444% Genoa 0.2222% Hugo 1.4778% Limon 6.6333% Logan County 72.7982% Crook 0.0931% Fleming 0.3413% Iliff 0.0095% Merino 0.4702% Peetz 0.2029% Sterling 26.0848% Mesa County 60.8549% Collbran 0.0920% Page 6 EXHIBIT EPage 124 Government Name Intracounty Share De Beque 0.0123% Fruita 1.6696% Grand Junction 37.1505% Palisade 0.2208% Mineral County 87.6744% City of Creede 12.3256% Moffat County 91.7981% Craig 8.1862% Dinosaur 0.0157% Montezuma County 79.6682% Cortez 18.6459% Dolores 0.6106% Mancos 1.0753% Montrose County 92.8648% Montrose 6.5980% Naturita 0.1551% Nucla 0.0703% Olathe 0.3118% Morgan County 61.6991% Brush 8.5522% Fort Morgan 27.8214% Hillrose 0.1986% Log Lane Village 0.6424% Wiggins 1.0863% Otero County 60.8168% Cheraw 0.1888% Fowler 1.0413% La Junta 25.9225% Manzanola 0.6983% Rocky Ford 8.8215% Swink 2.5109% Ouray County 76.0810% Ouray 17.6541% Ridgway 6.2649% Park County 96.3983% Alma 0.7780% Page 7 EXHIBIT EPage 125 Government Name Intracounty Share Fairplay 2.8237% Phillips County 52.3463% Haxtun 13.9505% Holyoke 33.1803% Paoli 0.5228% Pitkin County 47.1379% Aspen 42.0707% Basalt (2 Counties)1.1156% Snowmass Village 9.6757% Prowers County 70.4524% Granada 0.9965% Hartman 0.3164% Holly 4.9826% Lamar 21.5860% Wiley 1.6661% Pueblo County 54.6622% Boone 0.0019% Pueblo 45.3350% Rye 0.0008% Rio Blanco County 78.2831% Meeker 9.1326% Rangely 12.5843% Rio Grande County 68.0724% Center (2 Counties)0.7713% Del Norte 6.7762% Monte Vista 20.4513% South Fork 3.9288% Routt County 58.5353% Hayden 1.0679% Oak Creek 0.6360% Steamboat Springs 39.4499% Yampa 0.3109% Saguache County 92.8796% Bonanza 0.1367% Center (2 Counties)6.3687% Crestone 0.0137% Page 8 EXHIBIT EPage 126 Government Name Intracounty Share Moffat 0.3553% Saguache 0.2460% San Juan County 87.0423% Silverton 12.9577% San Miguel County 48.7493% Mountain Village 25.7930% Norwood 0.4078% Ophir 0.0816% Sawpit 0.0272% Telluride 24.9411% Sedgwick County 98.7331% Julesburg 0.3830% Ovid 0.0295% Sedgwick 0.8544% Summit County 57.0567% Blue River 0.5011% Breckenridge 26.1112% Dillon 4.1421% Frisco 6.5096% Montezuma 0.0169% Silverthorne 5.6623% Teller County 66.1557% Cripple Creek 17.2992% Green Mountain Falls (2 Counties)0.0322% Victor 3.1685% Woodland Park 13.3445% Washington County 99.1320% Akron 0.7659% Otis 0.1021% Weld County 51.9387% Ault 0.3202% Berthoud (2 Counties)0.0061% Brighton (2 Counties)0.0927% Dacono 0.6104% Eaton 0.4573% Erie (2 Counties)0.8591% Evans 4.5121% Page 9 EXHIBIT EPage 127 Government Name Intracounty Share Firestone 1.4648% Fort Lupton 0.8502% Frederick 1.2228% Garden City 0.1514% Gilcrest 0.1580% Greeley 30.6922% Grover 0.0852% Hudson 0.0066% Johnstown (2 Counties)1.5416% Keenesburg 0.0215% Kersey 0.1378% La Salle 0.4128% Lochbuie (2 Counties)0.4004% Longmont (2 Counties)0.0154% Mead 0.0941% Milliken 1.5373% Northglenn (2 Counties)0.0030% Nunn 0.2558% Pierce 0.0948% Platteville 0.3712% Raymer (New Raymer)0.0597% Severance 0.0403% Thornton (2 Counties)0.0000% Timnath (2 Counties)0.0000% Windsor (2 Counties)1.5865% Yuma County 75.5598% Eckley 2.5422% Wray 10.2148% Yuma 11.6832% Page 10 1 These allocations are based on the allocation model used in the Negotiation Class website. The allocation model is the product of prolonged and intensive research, analysis, and discussion by and among members of the court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and Settlement Committee and their retained public health and health economics experts, as well as a series of meetings with scores of cities, counties and subdivisions. Additional information about the allocation model is available on the Negotiation Class website. The allocations in the Negotiation Class website use two different methodologies: County-Level Allocation The allocation model uses three factors, based on reliable, detailed, and objective data collected and reported by the federal government, to determine the share of a settlement fund that each county will receive. The three factors are: (1) the amount of opioids shipped to the county, (2) the number of opioid deaths in that county, and (3) the number of people who suffer opioid use disorder in that county. County/Municipal-Level Allocation The county/municipal-level allocation is a default allocation to be used if another agreement is not reached between the county and its constituent cities. The formula uses U.S. Census Bureau data on local government spending. This data covers cities and counties for 98% of the U.S. population. If a jurisdiction lacked this data, it was extrapolated based on available data. 2 The municipalities of Bow Mar, Johnstown, and Timnath were not reflected as being in multiple counties in the Negotiation Class website. The estimated allocations to those cities are based on the same methodology used in the website, in consultation with the expert. For cities in multiple counties, please see each county in which that city lies. EXHIBIT EPage 128 Exhibit F Page 129 Region Number Region Description Total State Share 1 Northwest 0.9522% 2 Larimer 6.5211% 3 Weld 3.8908% 4 Logan 1.5896% 5 North Central 2.1061% 6 Boulder 5.7936% 7 Broomfield 1.0014% 8 Adams 9.4247% 9 Arapahoe 10.8071% 10 Jefferson 10.7114% 11 Denver 15.0042% 12 Douglas 3.6696% 13 Mesa 2.8911% 14 Southwest 1.4700% 15 Central 1.5627% 16 El Paso/Teller 12.6116% 17 Southwest Corner 1.4375% 18 South Central 1.0973% 19 Southeast 7.4580% Total 100.0000% Regional Allocations EXHIBIT FPage 130 Exhibit G Page 131 Regional Governance Models A.Membership Structure Single-County Regions 1. Voting Members (Recommended List: Participating Local Governments to Decide) •1 or 2 representatives appointed by the county (can be commissioners) •1 representative appointed from the public health department •1 representative from the county human services department •1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff, police, local city or town district attorney, etc.) •1 representative appointed from a municipal or county court system within region •1-3 representatives (total) appointed by the cities within the county (or other city or cities agreed upon) (can be councilmembers and mayors) •Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include providers who may be recipients of funds) 2.Non-Voting Members (Optional but strongly encouraged) •Representatives from behavioral health providers •Representatives from health care providers •Recovery/treatment experts •Other county or city representatives •A representative from the Attorney General’s Office •Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the opioid crisis •Harm reduction experts Multi-County Regions 1. Voting Members (Recommended List: Participating Local Governments to Decide) •1 representative appointed by each county (can be commissioners) •1 representative appointed by a rotating city within each county (or other city agreed upon) (can be councilmembers and mayors) •1 representative from each public health department within the region •1 representative from a county human services department •At least 1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff, police, local city or town district attorney, etc.) •1 representative from a municipal or county court system within region •Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include providers who may be recipients of funds) 2.Non-Voting Members (Optional) •Representatives from behavioral health providers EXHIBIT GPage 132 •Representatives from health care providers •Recovery/treatment experts •Other county or city representatives •A representative from the Attorney General’s Office •Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the opioid crisis. •Harm reduction experts Single-County Single-City Regions (Denver & Broomfield) 1. Voting Members (Recommended List: Participating Local Government to Decide) 1 •1 representative appointed by the city and county •1 representative appointed from the public health department •1 representative from the county human services department •1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff, police, district attorney, etc.) •1 representative appointed from a municipal or county court system within region •Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include providers who may be recipients of funds) 2.Non-Voting Members (Optional) •Representatives from behavioral health providers •Representatives from health care providers •Recovery/treatment experts •Other county or city representatives •A representative from the Attorney General’s Office •Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the opioid crisis. •Harm reduction experts B.Member Terms •Regions may establish terms of appointment for members. Appointment terms may be staggered. C.Procedures •Regions will be governed by an intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) or memorandum of understanding (“MOU”). •Regions may adopt the Model Colorado Regional Opioid Intergovernmental Agreement, attached here as Exhibit G-1, in its entirety or alter or amend it as they deem appropriate. 1 In Denver, the Mayor shall make voting member appointments to the Regional Council. In Broomfield, the City and County Manager shall make voting member appointments to the Regional Council. EXHIBIT GPage 133 •Regions may establish their own procedures through adoption of bylaws (model bylaws to be made available). •Meetings of regional board/committee shall be open to the public and comply with the Colorado Open Meetings Law (including requirement to keep minutes). D.Financial Responsibility/Controls •A local government entity shall nominate and designate a fiscal agent for the Region. •A Regional fiscal agent must be appointed by the Regional Council on an annual basis. A Regional fiscal agent may serve as long as the Regional Council determines is appropriate, including the length of any Settlement that contemplates the distribution of Opioid Funds within Colorado. However, the Regional fiscal agent also can change over time. •Regional fiscal agents must be a board of county commissioners or a city or town council or executive department, such as a department of finance. •Yearly reporting by fiscal agent (using standard form) to the Abatement Council. •All documents subject to CORA. E.Conflicts of Interest •Voting members shall abide by the conflict-of-interest rules applicable to local government officials under state law. F.Ethics Laws •Voting members shall abide by applicable state or local ethics laws, as appropriate. G.Authority •The Regional Council for each region shall have authority to decide how funds allocated to the region shall be distributed in accordance with the Colorado MOU and shall direct the fiscal agent accordingly. •Any necessary contracts will be entered into by the fiscal agent, subject to approval by the Regional Council. H.Legal Status •The region shall not be considered a separate legal entity, unless the Participating Local Governments decide, through an IGA, to create a separate governmental entity. EXHIBIT GPage 134 Exhibit G-1 Page 135 MODEL COLORADO REGIONAL OPIOID INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 THIS MODEL COLORADO REGIONAL OPIOID INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Regional Agreement”) is made between _________________, a Participating Local Government, as defined in the Colorado MOU, in the __________________ Region (“____________”) and ______________________, a Participating Local Government in the ___________ Region, (“_____________”), individually herein a “Regional PLG” and collectively the “Regional PLGs.”” RECITALS WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and Participating Local Governments executed the Colorado Opioids Summary Memorandum of Understanding on _______ 2021 (the “Colorado MOU”), establishing the manner in which Opioid Funds shall be divided and distributed within the State of Colorado; WHEREAS, the Regional Agreement assumes and incorporates the definitions and provisions contained in the Colorado MOU, and the Regional Agreement shall be construed in conformity with the Colorado MOU3; WHEREAS, all Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be used for Approved Purposes; WHEREAS, Participating Local Governments shall organize themselves into Regions, as further depicted in Exhibit E to the Colorado MOU; 2 This Model Regional Agreement is meant to serve as an example for the various Regions and to facilitate the flow of Opioid Funds to their intended purposes. Regions are free to adopt this Regional Agreement in its entirety or alter or amend it as they deem appropriate. 3 When drafting agreements like this Regional Agreement, Regional PLGs should be conscious of the definitions used therein so as not to confuse such definitions with those used in the Colorado MOU. The Definitions in the Colorado MOU shall supersede any definitions used by Regional PLGs in a Regional Agreement. EXHIBIT G-1Page 136 WHEREAS, Regions may consist of Single-County Regions, Multi-County Regions, or Single County- Single City Regions (Denver and Broomfield). WHEREAS, there shall be a 60% direct allocation of Opioid Funds to Regions through a Regional Share; WHEREAS, each Region shall be eligible to receive a Regional Share according to Exhibit C to the Colorado MOU; WHEREAS, the Colorado MOU establishes the procedures by which each Region shall be entitled to Opioid Funds from the Abatement Council and administer its Regional Share allocation; WHEREAS, the procedures established by the Colorado MOU include a requirement that each Region shall create its own Regional Council; WHEREAS, all aspects of the creation, administration, and operation of the Regional Council shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado MOU; WHEREAS, each such Regional Council shall designate a fiscal agent from a county or municipal government within that Region; WHEREAS, each such Regional Council shall submit a two-year plan to the Abatement Council that identifies the Approved Purposes for which the requested funds will be used, and the Regional Council’s fiscal agent shall provide data and a certification to the Abatement Council regarding compliance with its two-year plan on an annual basis; WHEREAS, the Regional Agreement pertains to the procedures for the Regional PLGs to establish a Regional Council, designate a fiscal agent, and request and administer Opioid Funds in a manner consistent with the Colorado MOU; EXHIBIT G-1Page 137 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Regional PLGs incorporate the recitals set forth above and agree as follows: 1.DEFINITIONS. The defined terms used in this Regional Agreement shall have the same meanings as in the Colorado MOU4. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined within the Regional Agreement or in the Colorado MOU shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the body of the Regional Agreement. 2.OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGIONAL PLGS. The Regional PLGs shall perform their respective obligations as set forth in the Regional Agreement, the Colorado MOU and the accompanying exhibits to the Colorado MOU and incorporated herein by reference. 3.REGIONAL COUNCIL. 3.1. Purpose: In accordance with the Colorado MOU, a Regional Council, consisting of representatives appointed by the Regional PLGs, shall be created to oversee the procedures by which a Region may request Opioid Funds from the Abatement Council and the procedures by which the allocation of its Region’s Share of Opioid Funds are administered. 3.2. Membership: The Regional Council of a Multi-County or Single County Region shall consist of the following: a.Multi-County Region: (i)Voting Members. Voting Members shall be appointed by the Regional PLGs. The Regional PLGs shall collaborate to appoint Regional Council members and to the extent practicable, Voting Members shall be selected from different counties and cities. No single county or city should dominate the make-up of the Regional Council. Voting Members shall be selected as follows: (1)1 representative appointed by each county (can be commissioners). (2)1 representative appointed from a rotating city within each county (or other city agreed upon) (can be councilmembers and mayors). A rotating city member shall be selected by majority vote of the cities within each county who do not have a Voting Member currently sitting on the Regional 4 See FN 2, supra. EXHIBIT G-1Page 138 Council. (3)1 representative from each public health department within the region. (4)1 representative from a county human services department. (5)At least 1 representative appointed from law enforcement within the region (sheriff, police, local city or town district attorney, etc.). (6)1 representative from a municipal or county court system within the region. b.Single-County Region: (i)Voting Members. Voting Members shall be appointed by the Regional PLGs. The Regional PLGs shall collaborate to appoint Regional Council members and to the extent practicable, Voting Members shall be selected from different cities within the region. No single city should dominate the make-up of the Regional Council. Voting Members shall be selected as follows: (1)1 or 2 representatives appointed by the county (can be commissioners) (2)1 representative appointed from the public health department (3)1 representative from the county human services department (4)1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff, police, local city or town district attorney, etc.) (5)1 representative appointed from a municipal or county court system within region (6)1-3 representatives (total) appointed by rotating cities within the county (or other city or cities agreed upon) (can be councilmembers and mayors). Rotating city members shall be selected by majority vote of the cities who do not have a Voting Member currently sitting on the Regional Council. (7)Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include providers who may be recipients of EXHIBIT G-1Page 139 funds) c.Non-Voting Members. For both Multi-County and Single County Regions, Non-Voting Members are optional but are strongly encouraged. Non-voting members shall serve in an advisory capacity. Any Non-Voting Members shall be appointed by the Regional PLGs and may be comprised of all or some of the following, not to include potential recipients of funds: (i)Representatives from behavioral health providers. (ii)Representatives from health care providers. (iii)Recovery/treatment experts. (iv)Other county or city representatives. (v)A representative from the Attorney General’s Office. (vi)Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the opioid crisis. (vii)Harm reduction experts. d.Acting Chair: The Voting Members for both Multi-County and Single- County Regions shall appoint one member to serve as Acting Chair of the Regional Council. The Acting Chair’s primary responsibilities shall be to schedule periodic meetings and votes of the Regional Council as needed and to serve as the point of contact for disputes within the Region. The Acting Chair must be either a Member from a county within a Region, such as a county commissioner or their designee, or a Member from a city or town within a Region, such as a mayor or city or town council member or their designee. e.Non-Participation: A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local Government in the Colorado MOU shall not receive any Opioid Funds from the Regional Share or participate in the Regional Council. f.Terms: The Regional Council shall be established within ninety (90) days of the first Settlement being entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court. In order to do so, within sixty (60) days of the first Settlement being entered, CCI and CML shall jointly recommend six (6) Voting Members, and so long as such recommendations comply with the terms of Section 3.2 (a) or (b), the Regional Council shall consist of CCI/CML’s recommended Members for EXHIBIT G-1Page 140 an initial term not to exceed one year.5 Thereafter, Voting Members shall be appointed in accordance with Section 3.2 (a) or (b) and shall serve two- year terms. Following the expiration of that two-year term, the Regional PLGs, working in concert, shall reappoint that Voting Member, or appoint a new Voting Member according to Section 3.2 (a) or (b). (i)If a Voting Member resigns or is otherwise removed from the Regional Council prior to the expiration of their term, a replacement Voting Member shall be appointed within sixty (60) days in accordance with Section 3.2 (a) or (b) to serve the remainder of the term. If the Regional PLGs are unable to fill a Voting Member vacancy within sixty (60) days, the existing Voting Members of the Regional Council at the time of the vacancy shall work collectively to appoint a replacement Voting Member in accordance with Section 3.2 (a) or (b). At the end of his or her term, the individual serving as that replacement Voting Member may be reappointed by the Regional PLGs to serve a full term consistent with this Section. (ii)The purpose of the two-year term is to allow Regional PLGs an increased opportunity to serve on the Regional Council. However, Regional Council members who have already served on the Regional Council may be appointed more than once and may serve consecutive terms if appointed to do so by the Regional Council. 3.3. Duties: The Regional Council is primarily responsible for engaging with the Abatement Council on behalf of its Region and following the procedures outlined in the Colorado MOU for requesting Opioid Funds from the Regional Share, which shall include developing 2-year plans, amending those plans as appropriate, and providing the Abatement Council with data through its fiscal agent regarding Opioid Fund expenditures. Upon request from the Abatement Council, the Regional Council may also be subject to an accounting from the Abatement Council. 3.4. Governance: A Regional Council may establish its own procedures through adoption of bylaws if needed. Any governing documents must be consistent with the other provisions in this section and the Colorado MOU. 3.5. Authority: The terms of the Colorado MOU control the authority of a Regional Council and a Regional Council shall not stray outside the bounds of the authority and power vested by the Colorado MOU. Should a Regional Council require legal assistance in determining its authority, 5 Local Governments within Multi-County or Single County Regions may decide to select initial Voting Members of the Regional Council between themselves and without CCI and CML involvement. However, the Regional Council must be established within ninety (90) days of the first Settlement being entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court. EXHIBIT G-1Page 141 it may seek guidance from the legal counsel of the county or municipal government of the Regional Council’s fiscal agent at the time the issue arises. 3.6. Collaboration: The Regional Council shall facilitate collaboration between the State, Participating Local Governments within its Region, the Abatement Council, and other stakeholders within its Region for the purposes of sharing data, outcomes, strategies, and other relevant information related to abating the opioid crisis in Colorado. 3.7. Transparency: The Regional Council shall operate with all reasonable transparency and abide by all Colorado laws relating to open records and meetings. To the extent the Abatement Council requests outcome-related data from the Regional Council, the Regional Council shall provide such data in an effort to determine best methods for abating the opioid crisis in Colorado. 3.8. Conflicts of Interest: Voting Members shall abide by the conflict-of-interest rules applicable to local government officials under state law. 3.9. Ethics Laws: Voting Members shall abide by their local ethics laws or, if no such ethics laws exist, by applicable state ethics laws. 3.10. Decision Making: The Regional Council shall seek to make all decisions by consensus. In the event consensus cannot be achieved, the Regional Council shall make decisions by a majority vote of its Members. 4.REGIONAL FISCAL AGENT 4.1. Purpose: According to the Colorado MOU, the Regional Council must designate a fiscal agent for the Region prior to the Region receiving any Opioid funds from the Regional Share. All funds from the Regional Share shall be distributed to the Regional Council’s fiscal agent for the benefit of the entire Region. 4.2. Designation: The Regional Council shall nominate and designate a fiscal agent for the Region by majority vote. Regional fiscal agents must be a board of county commissioners or a city or town council or executive department, such as a department of finance. 4.3. Term: A Regional fiscal agent must be appointed by the Regional Council on an annual basis. A Regional fiscal agent may serve as long as the Regional Council determines is appropriate, including the length of any Settlement that contemplates the distribution of Opioid Funds within Colorado. 4.4. Duties: The Regional fiscal agent shall receive, deposit, and make available Opioid Funds distributed from the Abatement Council and provide expenditure reporting data to the EXHIBIT G-1Page 142 Abatement Council on an annual basis. In addition, the Regional fiscal agent shall perform certain recordkeeping duties outlined below. a.Opioid Funds: The Regional fiscal agent shall receive all Opioid Funds as distributed by the Abatement Council. Upon direction by the Regional Council, the Regional fiscal agent shall make any such Opioid Funds available to the Regional Council. b.Reporting: On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, the Regional fiscal agent shall provide to the Abatement Council the Regional Council’s expenditure data from their allocation of the Regional Share and certify to the Abatement Council that the Regional Council’s expenditures were for Approved Purposes and complied with its 2-year plan. c.Recordkeeping: The Regional fiscal agent shall maintain necessary records with regard the Regional Council’s meetings, decisions, plans, and expenditure data. 4.5. Authority: The fiscal agent serves at the direction of the Regional Council and in service to the entire Region. The terms of the Colorado MOU control the authority of a Regional Council, and by extension, the Regional fiscal agent. A Regional fiscal agent shall not stray outside the bounds of the authority and power vested by the Colorado MOU. 5.REGIONAL TWO-YEAR PLAN 5.1. Purpose: According to the Colorado MOU, as part of a Regional Council’s request to the Abatement Council for Opioid Funds from its Regional Share, the Regional Council must submit a 2-year plan identifying the Approved Purposes for which the requested funds will be used. 5.2 Development of 2-Year Plan: In developing a 2-year plan, the Regional Council shall solicit recommendations and information from all Regional PLGs and other stakeholders within its Region for the purposes of sharing data, outcomes, strategies, and other relevant information related to abating the opioid crisis in Colorado. At its discretion, a Regional Council may seek assistance from the Abatement Council for purposes of developing a 2-year plan. 5.3 Amendment: At any point, a Regional Council’s 2-year plan may be amended so long as such amendments comply with the terms of the Colorado MOU and any Settlement. 6.DISPUTES WITHIN REGION. In the event that any Regional PLG disagrees with a decision of the Regional Council, or there is a dispute regarding the appointment of Voting or Non-Voting Members to the Regional Council, that Regional PLG shall inform the Acting Chair of its dispute at the earliest EXHIBIT G-1Page 143 possible opportunity. In Response, the Regional Council shall gather any information necessary to resolve the dispute. Within fourteen (14) days of the Regional PLG informing the Acting Chair of its dispute, the Regional Council shall issue a decision with respect to the dispute. In reaching its decision, the Regional Council may hold a vote of Voting Members, with the Acting Chair serving as the tie- breaker, or the Regional Council may devise its own dispute resolution process. However, in any disputes regarding the appointment of a Voting Member, that Voting Member will be recused from voting on the dispute. The decision of the Regional Council is a final decision. 7.DISPUTES WITH ABATEMENT COUNCIL. If the Regional Council disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it receives from its allocation of the Regional Share, the Regional Council shall alert the Abatement Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the dispute. However, the failure to alert the Abatement Council within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the Regional Council’s right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its Regional Share. 8.RECORDKEEPING. The acting Regional fiscal agent shall be responsible for maintaining records consistent with the Regional Agreement. 9.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Each Regional PLGs’ representative designated below shall be the point of contact to coordinate the obligations as provided herein. The Regional PLGs designate their authorized representatives under this Regional Agreement as follows: 9.1. ______ designates the ____ of the ________ or their designee(s). 9.2. ______ designates the ____ of the ________ or their designee(s). 10.OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGIONAL PLGS. The Regional PLGs shall perform their respective obligations as set forth in the Regional Agreement, the Colorado MOU and the accompanying exhibits to the Colorado MOU and incorporated herein by reference. 11.TERM. The Regional Agreement will commence on _______, and shall expire on the date the last action is taken by the Region, consistent with the terms of the Colorado MOU and any Settlement. (the “Term”). 12.INFORMATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. Each Regional PLG hereto will meet its obligations as set forth in § 29-1-205, C.R.S., as amended, to include information about this Regional Agreement in a filing with the Colorado Division of Local Government; however, failure to do so shall in no way affect the validity of this Regional Agreement or any remedies available to the Regional PLGs hereunder. 13.CONFIDENTIALITY. The Regional PLGs, for themselves, their agents, employees and representatives, agree that they will not divulge any confidential or proprietary information they receive from another Regional PLG or otherwise have access to, except as may be required by law. Nothing in this Regional EXHIBIT G-1Page 144 Agreement shall in any way limit the ability of the Regional PLGs to comply with any laws or legal process concerning disclosures by public entities. The Regional PLGs understand that all materials exchanged under this Regional Agreement, including confidential information or proprietary information, may be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act., § 24-72-201, et seq., C.R.S., (the “Act”). In the event of a request to a Regional PLG for disclosure of confidential materials, the Regional PLG shall advise the Regional PLGs of such request in order to give the Regional PLGs the opportunity to object to the disclosure of any of its materials which it marked as, or otherwise asserts is, proprietary or confidential. If a Regional PLG objects to disclosure of any of its material, the Regional PLG shall identify the legal basis under the Act for any right to withhold. In the event of any action or the filing of a lawsuit to compel disclosure, the Regional PLG agrees to intervene in such action or lawsuit to protect and assert its claims of privilege against disclosure of such material or waive the same. If the matter is not resolved, the Regional PLGs may tender all material to the court for judicial determination of the issue of disclosure. 14.GOVERNING LAW; VENUE. This Regional Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any legal action relating solely to this Regional Agreement will be in the applicable District Court of the State of Colorado for the county of the Region’s fiscal agent. Venue for any legal action relating to the Colorado MOU shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction where a Settlement or consent decree was entered, as those terms are described or defined in the Colorado MOU. If a legal action relates to both a Regional Agreement and the Colorado MOU, venue shall also be in a court of competent jurisdiction where a Settlement or consent decree was entered. 15.TERMINATION. The Regional PLGs enter into this Regional Agreement to serve the public interest. If this Regional Agreement ceases to further the public interest, a Regional PLG, in its discretion, may terminate their participation in the Regional Agreement, in whole or in part, upon written notice to the other Regional PLGs. Each Regional PLG also has the right to terminate the Regional Agreement with cause upon written notice effective immediately, and without cause upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Regional PLGs. A Regional PLG’s decision to terminate this Regional Agreement, with or without cause, shall have no impact on the other Regional PLGs present or future administration of its Opioid Funds and the other procedures outlined in this Regional Agreement. Rather, a Regional PLG’s decision to terminate this Regional Agreement shall have the same effect as non-participation, as outlined in Section 3.2 (e). 16.NOTICES. “Key Notices” under this Regional Agreement are notices regarding default, disputes, or termination of the Regional Agreement. Key Notices shall be given in writing and shall be deemed EXHIBIT G-1Page 145 received if given by confirmed electronic transmission that creates a record that may be retained, retrieved and reviewed by a recipient thereof, and that may be directly reproduced in paper form by such a recipient through an automated process, but specifically excluding facsimile transmissions and texts when transmitted, if transmitted on a business day and during normal business hours of the recipient, and otherwise on the next business day following transmission; certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, three business days after being deposited in the United States mail; or overnight carrier service or personal delivery, when received. For Key Notices, the Regional PLGs will follow up any electronic transmission with a hard copy of the communication by the means described above. All other communications or notices between the Regional PLGs that are not Key Notices may be done via electronic transmission. The Regional PLGs agree that any notice or communication transmitted by electronic transmission shall be treated in all manner and respects as an original written document; any such notice or communication shall be considered to have the same binding and legal effect as an original document. All Key Notices shall include a reference to the Regional Agreement, and Key Notices shall be given to the Regional PLGs at the following addresses: _____________________________ _____________________________ 17.GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 17.1. Independent Entities. The Regional PLGs enter into this Regional Agreement as separate, independent governmental entities and shall maintain such status throughout. 17.2. Assignment. This Regional Agreement shall not be assigned by any Regional PLG without the prior written consent of all Regional PLGs. Any assignment or subcontracting without such consent will be ineffective and void and will be cause for termination of this Regional Agreement. 17.3. Integration and Amendment. This Regional Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Regional PLGs and terminates any oral or collateral agreement or understandings. This Regional Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the Regional PLGs. If any provision of this Regional Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, no other provision shall be affected by such holding, and the remaining provision of this Regional Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. EXHIBIT G-1Page 146 17.4. No Construction Against Drafting Party. The Regional PLGs and their respective counsel have had the opportunity to review the Regional Agreement, and the Regional Agreement will not be construed against any Regional PLG merely because any provisions of the Regional Agreement were prepared by a particular Regional PLG. 17.5. Captions and References. The captions and headings in this Regional Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not be used to interpret, define, or limit its provisions. All references in this Regional Agreement to sections (whether spelled out or using the § symbol), subsections, exhibits or other attachments, are references to sections, subsections, exhibits or other attachments contained herein or incorporated as a part hereof, unless otherwise noted. 17.6. Statutes, Regulations, and Other Authority. Any reference in this Regional Agreement to a statute, regulation, policy or other authority shall be interpreted to refer to such authority then current, as may have been changed or amended since the execution of this Regional Agreement. 17.7. Conflict of Interest. No Regional PLG shall knowingly perform any act that would conflict in any manner with said Regional PLG’s obligations hereunder. Each Regional PLG certifies that it is not engaged in any current project or business transaction, directly or indirectly, nor has it any interest, direct or indirect, with any person or business that might result in a conflict of interest in the performance of its obligations hereunder. No elected or employed member of any Regional PLG shall be paid or receive, directly or indirectly, any share or part of this Regional Agreement or any benefit that may arise therefrom. 17.8. Inurement. The rights and obligations of the Regional PLGs to the Regional Agreement inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Regional PLGs and their respective successors and assigns, provided assignments are consented to in accordance with the terms of the Regional Agreement. 17.9. Survival. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Regional PLGs understand and agree that all terms and conditions of this Regional Agreement and any exhibits that require continued performance or compliance beyond the termination or expiration of this Regional Agreement shall survive such termination or expiration and shall be enforceable against a Regional PLG if such Regional PLG fails to perform or comply with such term or condition. 17.10. Waiver of Rights and Remedies. This Regional Agreement or any of its provisions may not be waived except in writing by a Regional PLG’s authorized representative. The failure of a EXHIBIT G-1Page 147 Regional PLG to enforce any right arising under this Regional Agreement on one or more occasions will not operate as a waiver of that or any other right on that or any other occasion. 17.11. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Enforcement of the terms of the Regional Agreement and all rights of action relating to enforcement are strictly reserved to the Regional PLGs. Nothing contained in the Regional Agreement gives or allows any claim or right of action to any third person or entity. Any person or entity other than the Regional PLGs receiving services or benefits pursuant to the Regional Agreement is an incidental beneficiary only. 17.12. Records Retention. The Regional PLGs shall maintain all records, including working papers, notes, and financial records in accordance with their applicable record retention schedules and policies. Copies of such records shall be furnished to the Parties request. 17.13. Execution by Counterparts; Electronic Signatures and Records. This Regional Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Regional PLGs approve the use of electronic signatures for execution of this Regional Agreement. All use of electronic signatures shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-71.3-101, et seq. The Regional PLGs agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the Regional Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation. The Regional PLGs agree not to object to the admissibility of the Regional Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original. 17.14. Authority to Execute. Each Regional PLG represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such Regional PLG’s execution of this Regional Agreement have been performed and that the person signing for such Regional PLG has been authorized to execute the Regional Agreement. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4826-9997-5642, v. 7 EXHIBIT G-1Page 148 Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding Summary Below is a brief overview of the key provisions outlined in the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (“Colorado MOU”). The Colorado MOU was signed by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on August 26, 2021. In order to receive the full settlement payments for all of Colorado, strong participation by local governments signing on to the Colorado MOU is necessary. Local governments and the State prepared the Colorado MOU, which prioritizes regionalism, collaboration, and abatement in the sharing and distribution of opioid settlement funds. The points below summarize the framework laid out in the Colorado MOU for distributing and sharing opioids settlement proceeds throughout Colorado. Please see the full Colorado MOU and exhibits for additional details. While Colorado’s local governments are currently being asked to participate in recent settlements with the “Big 3” Distributors (AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson) and Johnson & Johnson, the Colorado MOU is intended to apply to all current and future opioid settlements. A.Allocation of Settlement Funds The Colorado MOU provides the framework for fairly dividing and sharing settlement proceeds among the state and local governments in Colorado. Under the Colorado MOU, settlement proceeds will be distributed as follows: 1.10% directly to the State (“State Share”) 2.20% directly to Participating Local Governments (“LG Share”) 3.60% directly to Regions (“Regional Share”) 4.10% to specific abatement infrastructure projects (“Statewide Infrastructure Share”) Under the Colorado MOU, all settlement funds must be used only for “Approved Purposes,” a long and broad list that focuses on abatement strategies. These strategies emphasize prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Some examples of these strategies include training health care providers on opioid use disorder (“OUD”) treatment and responsible prescribing, expanding telehealth and mobile services for treatment, and increasing naloxone and rescue breathing supplies. The list of Approved Purposes is broad enough to be flexible for local communities, while ensuring that settlement funds are used to combat the opioid epidemic. The list of Approved Purposes is attached as Exhibit A to the MOU, unless the term is otherwise defined in a settlement. Attachment 3 Page 149 B. General Abatement Fund Council A General Abatement Fund Council (the “Abatement Council”), consisting of representatives appointed by the State and Participating Local Governments, will ensure that the distribution of opioid funds complies with the terms of any settlement and the terms of the Colorado MOU. The Abatement Council will consist of 13 members, seven appointed by the State and six appointed by the Participating Local Governments. C. Local Government Share (20%) Twenty percent of settlement funds will be paid directly to Participating Local Governments. Exhibit D to the Colorado MOU lists the percentage to each County Area (that is, the county government plus the municipalities within that county), and Exhibit E further breaks down those allocations to an intracounty level using a default allocation. The allocations to each County Area in Exhibit D are based on three factors that address critical causes and effects of the opioid crisis: (1) the number of persons suffering opioid use disorder in the county; (2) the number of opioid overdose deaths that occurred in the county; and (3) the amount of opioids distributed within the county. The intracounty allocations in Exhibit E are a default allocation that will apply unless the local governments in a County Area enter into a written agreement providing for a different allocation. These allocations are based on a model, developed by health economist experts, which uses data from the State and Local Government Census on past spending relevant to opioid abatement. Participating Local Governments will provide data on expenditures from the LG Share to the Abatement Council on an annual basis. If a local government wishes, it may forego its LG Share and direct it to the Regional Share. A local government that chooses not to participate or sign onto the Colorado MOU will not receive funds from the LG Share and the portion of the LG Share that it would have received will instead be re-allocated to the Regional Share for the region where that local government is located. D. Regional Share (60%) Sixty percent of settlement funds will be allocated to single- or multi-county regions made up of local governments. These regions were drawn by local governments to make use of existing local infrastructure and relationships. The regional map is shown below, as well as in Exhibit C to the Colorado MOU: Page 150 Allocations to regions will be calculated according to the percentages in Exhibit F. Each region will create its own “Regional Council” to determine what Approved Purposes to fund with that region’s allocation from the Regional Share. Regional governance models are attached to the Colorado MOU as Exhibit G. Each region may draft its own intra-regional agreements, bylaws, or other governing documents to determine how the Regional Council will operate, subject to the terms of the Colorado MOU. Each Regional Council will provide expenditure data to the Abatement Council on an annual basis. A local government that chooses not to participate or sign onto the Colorado MOU shall not receive any opioid funds from the Regional Share and shall not participate in the Regional Councils. E. State Share (10%) Ten percent of settlement funds will be allocated directly to the State for statewide priorities in combating the opioid epidemic. The State maintains full discretion over distribution of the State Share anywhere within the State of Colorado. On an annual basis, the State shall provide all data on expenditures from the State Share, including administrative costs, to the Abatement Council. F. Statewide Infrastructure Share (10%) Ten percent of the settlement funds will be allocated to a Statewide Infrastructure Share to promote capital improvements and provide operational assistance for the development or improvement of infrastructure necessary to abate the opioid crisis anywhere in Colorado. Page 151 The Abatement Council shall establish and publish policies and procedures for the distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share, including processes for local governments or regions to apply for opioid funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. G. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Paid Through a Back-Stop Fund To a large extent, the national opioid settlements occurred because of the pressure that litigating entities and their counsel exerted on defendants through their lawsuits. The attorneys’ fee provision equitably allocates the cost of attorneys’ fees, while also allowing non-litigating entities to share in the 25% premium for releases by the litigating entities in the “Big 3” Distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements. The work that was done by the litigating entities and their law firms in the litigation has substantially contributed to achieving the settlements that are currently being offered and those that are anticipated in the future. The Attorney General and local governments have agreed to a “Back-Stop Fund” for attorneys’ fees and costs. Before a law firm can apply to the Back-Stop Fund, it must first apply to any national common benefit fee fund. The Back-Stop Fund will only be used to pay the difference between what law firms are owed and the amount they have received from a national common benefit fee fund. Attorneys’ fees are limited to 8.7% of the total LG Share and 4.35% of the total Regional Share. No funds will be taken from the Statewide Infrastructure Share or State Share. A committee will be formed to oversee payments from the Back-Stop Fund. The committee will include litigating and non-litigating entities. Importantly, any excess money in the Back-Stop fund, after attorneys’ fees and costs are paid, will go back to the local governments. H. Participation in the Colorado MOU and Expected Timeline The MOU was designed to ensure that as many local governments as possible would agree to its terms. Strong participation from local governments is needed to receive the full settlement payments for all of Colorado. On August 26, 2021, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser signed the MOU. It is projected that settlement funds from the “Big 3” Distributor/Johnson & Johnson settlements could be made available as soon as July 2022 and will be distributed within Colorado according to the MOU. Along with the MOU, each local government will need to sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form for each of the settlements (the “Big 3” Distributor settlement and the Johnson & Johnson settlement) releasing their legal claims and stating they are participating in the settlements. In addition, a Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement should be signed to ensure legal claims are released only when 95% participation by certain local governments has been reached. That 95% participation threshold is important because it triggers certain amounts of incentive payments under the settlements and signals to the settling pharmaceutical companies that the settlements have wide acceptance. A copy of the MOU with signature pages for each local government, the Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms, and the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement will be Page 152 provided by the Attorney General’s Office. The documents should be executed by the individual or body with authority to do so on behalf of their respective county or municipality and submitted by mail or email to either CCI or CML at the following addresses: For Counties: Colorado Counties, Inc. 800 Grant, Ste 500 Denver, CO 80203 Email: Kyley Burress at KBurress@ccionline.org Katie First at KFirst@ccionline.org For Municipalities: Colorado Municipal League 1144 N. Sherman St. Denver, CO 80203 Email: opioidsettlement@cml.org If you have any questions, please reach out to Heidi Williams of the Colorado AG’s office at Heidi.Williams@coag.gov. 4836-1115-5960, v. 7 Page 153 Colorado Opioids Settlement MOU: Frequently Asked Questions 1.What does this “settle” and why does Colorado need an MOU? Nationwide settlements have been reached with the “Big 3” opioid distributors (McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen) and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to resolve claims by state and local governments that these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic. The claims being settled include those raised by local governments in the national multi-district litigation (“MDL”), In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804 (N.D. Ohio). More information about these settlements can be found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/. The Colorado MOU establishes the framework for distributing and sharing these settlement proceeds throughout Colorado. Local governments and the State prepared the Colorado MOU, which prioritizes regionalism, collaboration, and abatement. It is expected that the Colorado MOU will also be used for settlements with other opioid defendants in the future, including any settlement from Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy proceeding. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser signed the MOU on August 26, 2021. The Colorado MOU is included in this packet from the Attorney General’s Office and can also be found at www.coag.gov/opioids. 2.Who put together the Colorado MOU? Local government officials from across Colorado were involved in the negotiation of the Colorado MOU with the Attorney General’s Office. County commissioners, mayors, county and city attorneys, and other stakeholders came together with the assistance of Colorado Counties, Inc. (“CCI”) and the Colorado Municipal League (“CML”) to establish the framework and negotiate the details of the Colorado MOU. 3.How much money will Colorado receive and over what period of time? Funds from the Big 3 and Johnson & Johnson settlements will be distributed over a period of years. The Big 3 distributors will pay a maximum of $21 billion over 18 years, while Johnson & Johnson will pay a maximum of $5 billion over no more than nine years. In total, up to approximately $22.8 billion in settlement proceeds will be payable to state and local subdivisions nationwide. Each state receives a percentage of that recovery, and Colorado’s maximum share from these settlements will likely be more than $300 million. However, as discussed more below, Colorado will receive its maximum share of settlement payments only if enough local governments sign on to the deal. Also, the settling defendants have the option to “walk away” from the deals if there is not enough participation, so it is important that a “critical mass” of local governments signs on soon. Otherwise, the entire deal could fall through. Attachment 4 Page 154 4. How can we maximize Colorado’s recovery? The MOU was designed to ensure that as many local governments as possible would agree to its terms. The Big 3 Distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements include incentive payments based on how many governments participate. Strong participation from local governments is needed to receive the full settlement payments for all of Colorado. Local governments should sign the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement to ensure their legal claims are released only when 95% participation by local governments has been reached, which secures significant incentive payments under these settlement agreements. For more information on the incentive payments, please see the graphics below: Page 155 5. Is participation limited to litigating entities? No, participation is not limited to governments that filed suit in the opioid litigation. Money from these settlements will be used for opioid crisis abatement in communities across Colorado, regardless of whether they have chosen to sue. All Colorado local governments are eligible to participate in the settlements and join the MOU, and the MOU does not allocate more funds to cities and counties that chose to file suit—all cities and counties in Colorado are allocated funds based on the same objective factors. 6. How will settlement proceeds be divided within the state under the Colorado MOU? Under the Colorado MOU, settlement proceeds will be distributed as follows: • 10% directly to the State (“State Share”) • 20% directly to Participating Local Governments (“LG Share”) • 60% directly to Regions (“Regional Share”) • 10% to specific abatement infrastructure projects (“Statewide Infrastructure Share”) 7. How will the money be spent? Under the Colorado MOU, all settlement funds must be used only for “Approved Purposes,” a long and broad list that focuses on abatement strategies. These strategies emphasize prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Some examples of these strategies include training health care providers on opioid use disorder (“OUD”) treatment and responsible prescribing, expanding telehealth and mobile services for treatment, and increasing naloxone and rescue breathing Page 156 supplies. The list of Approved Purposes is broad enough to be flexible for local communities, while ensuring that settlement funds are used to combat the opioid epidemic. The list of Approved Purposes is attached as Exhibit A to the MOU, unless the term is otherwise defined in a settlement. To ensure that settlement funds are in fact used only for Approved Purposes, a General Abatement Fund Council (the “Abatement Council”) will be formed. This committee will consist of thirteen representatives appointed by the State and Participating Local Governments to ensure opioid funds are spent in compliance with the terms of the settlements and the Colorado MOU. 8. How will direct payments to local governments be allocated? Under the Colorado MOU, 20% of the settlement funds will be paid directly to local governments. A list of the percentage of settlement funds that will be allocated to each County Area (that is, the county government plus the municipalities within that county) is Exhibit D to the Colorado MOU. Those allocations are further broken down to an intracounty level in Exhibit E, which is a default allocation. The allocations to each County Area are based on three factors that address the relative severity of the opioid crisis: (a) the number of persons suffering from Opioid Use Disorder in the county; (b) the number of opioid overdose deaths in the county; and (c) the amount of opioids distributed within the county (measured in Morphine Milligram Equivalent units). The intracounty allocations in Exhibit E are based on a default allocation model that will apply unless the local governments in a County Area enter into an agreement that provides for a different allocation model. These allocations are based on a model developed by health economist experts, which use data from the State and Local Governments Census on past spending relevant to opioid abatement. To ensure transparency and that settlement funds are used for Approved Purposes, local governments that receive settlement funds directly will be required to provide expenditure data to the Abatement Council on an annual basis. Local governments that wish to join the MOU but do not wish to receive any direct payments have the option to redirect their payments to the Regional allocation described below. A local government that chooses not to participate or sign onto the Colorado MOU will not receive funds from the LG Share and the portion of the LG share that it would have received will instead be re-allocated to the Regional Share described below. 9. How will payments to Regions be allocated? Under the Colorado MOU, 60% of the settlement funds will be allocated to single- or multi- county regions made up of local governments. Local governments in Colorado worked collaboratively to develop the Regional Map, which emphasizes existing local infrastructure and relationships. The regional map is below, as well as included in the Colorado MOU as Exhibit C: Page 157 For more information on the percentages of settlement funds that will be allocated to each Region, please see Exhibit F of the Colorado MOU. 10. How will the Regions be governed? Each Region will create its own “Regional Council” consisting of members from the constituent local governments to determine what Approved Purposes to fund with the Region’s allocation. The Regional Council will have the power to make spending decisions in the Region. The Regions will designate a fiscal agent prior to receiving any settlement funds. Regional governance models are attached to the Colorado MOU as Exhibit G. Each Region may draft its own intra-regional agreements, bylaws, or other governing documents to determine how the Regional Council will operate. Each Regional Council will provide expenditure data to the Abatement Council on an annual basis. 11. How will the Statewide Infrastructure Share work? Many stakeholders have expressed a need for capital improvements across Colorado, and particularly in underserved areas, to abate the opioid crisis. The Colorado MOU directly addresses this by allocating 10% of settlement funds going to these projects. This money will be distributed by a statewide committee based on need. The Abatement Council will establish and publish policies and procedures for the distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share, including processes for local governments or regions to apply for opioid funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. Page 158 12. How will attorneys’ fees and expenses be paid? The Attorney General and local governments have agreed to a “Back-Stop Fund” for attorneys’ fees and costs. The attorneys’ fee provision in the Colorado MOU equitably allocates the cost of attorneys’ fees across all local governments, while also allowing non-litigating entities to share in the 25% premium for releases signed by the litigating entities in the “Big 3” Distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements. Before a law firm can apply to the Back-Stop Fund, it must first apply to any national common benefit fee fund. The Back-Stop Fund will only be used to pay the difference between what law firms are owed and the amount they have received from a national common benefit fee fund. Attorneys’ fees are limited to 8.7% of the total LG Share and 4.35% of the total Regional Share. No funds will be taken from the Statewide Infrastructure Share or State Share. A committee will be formed to oversee payments from the Back-Stop Fund. The committee will include litigating and non-litigating entities. Importantly, any excess money in the Back-Stop fund, after attorneys’ fees and costs are paid, will go back to the local governments. 13. Why is this a great result for local governments? The Colorado MOU will ensure effective and efficient use of funds without dilution or diversion of opioid settlement money to unrelated purposes or unnecessary overhead expenses. In the Colorado MOU the local governments control 80% of the settlement funds. • Bottom-Up Approach – The need is at the local level, so the resources should be, too. • Local Voices – The communities bearing the brunt of this burden must have a meaningful seat at the table to make decisions about where resources go. • Flexibility – The Colorado MOU provides an opportunity for local governments to decide how to entrust their own regional funds without unnecessary red tape. 14. How do I sign the MOU? Local governments should sign four documents. a. First is the MOU. b. Next, each local government will need to sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form for each of the two settlements (the “Big 3” Distributor settlement and the Johnson & Johnson settlement) releasing their legal claims and stating they are participating in the settlements. c. In addition, a Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement should be signed to ensure legal claims are released only when 95% participation by certain local governments has been reached, which secures a significant portion of the incentive payments described in FAQ 4, above. Under the terms of the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement, CCI (for counties) or Page 159 CML (for municipalities) will hold the MOUs and the Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms for each of the settlements in escrow until 95% participation by local governments has been reached as to specified incentive payments under the respective settlement agreements. Copies of the Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms, the MOU with signature pages for each local government, and the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement will be provided by the Attorney General’s Office. The documents should be executed by the individual or body with authority to do so on behalf of their respective county or municipality and submitted by mail or email to either CCI or CML at the following addresses: For Counties: Colorado Counties, Inc. 800 Grant, Ste 500 Denver, CO 80203 Email: Kyley Burress KBurress@ccionline.org Katie First KFirst@ccionline.org For Municipalities: Colorado Municipal League 1144 N. Sherman St. Denver, CO 80203 Email: opioidsettlement@cml.org If you have any questions, please reach out to Heidi Williams of the Colorado AG’s office at Heidi.Williams@coag.gov. 4831-7831-1416, v. 5 Page 160 86 revised July 30, 2021 EXHIBIT K Settlement Participation Form Governmental Entity: State: Authorized Official: Address 1: Address 2: City, State, Zip: Phone: Email: The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021 (“Janssen Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Janssen Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows. 1.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Janssen Settlement, understands that all terms in this Election and Release have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by this Election, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Janssen Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein. 2.The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. 3.The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Janssen Settlement pertaining to Subdivisions as defined therein. 4.By agreeing to the terms of the Janssen Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date. 5.The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Janssen Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein. 6.The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Janssen Settlement. 7.The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Janssen Settlement as provided therein. Attachment 5 Page 161 87 revised July 30, 2021 8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Janssen Settlement, including but not limited to all provisions of Section IV (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Janssen Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Janssen Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim. 9. In connection with the releases provided for in the Janssen Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads: General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party. A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Janssen Settlement. 10. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Janssen Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Election and Release is interpreted differently from the Janssen Settlement in any respect, the Janssen Settlement controls. Page 162 88 revised July 30, 2021 I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Election and Release on behalf of the Governmental Entity. Signature: Name: Title: Date: _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 163 Governmental Entity: Authorized Official: Address 1: Address 2: City, State, Zip: Phone: Email: EXHIBITK DISTRIBUTORS' 9.18.21 EXHIBIT UPDATES Subdivision Settlement Participation Form State: The governmental entity identified above ("Governmental Entity"), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021 ("Distributor Settlement"), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Distributor Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows. 1.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Distributor Settlement, understands that all terms in this Participation Form have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by signing this Participation Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Distributor Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein. 2.The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, secure the dismissal with prejudice of any Released Claims that it has filed. 3.The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Distributor Settlement pertaining to Subdivisions as defined therein. 4.By agreeing to the terms of the Distributor Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date. 5.The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Distributor Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein. 6.The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity's state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court's role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Distributor Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise provided in, the Distributor Settlement. K-1 Attachment 6 Page 164 DISTRIBUTORS' 9.18.21 EXHIBIT UPDATES 7.The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Distributor Settlement as provided therein. 8.The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Distributor Settlement, including, but not limited to, all provisions of Part XI, and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Distributor Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Distributor Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim. 9.The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision as set forth in the Distributor Settlement. 10.In connection with the releases provided for in the Distributor Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to§ 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads: General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, and that if known by him or her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party. A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities' decision to participate in the Distributor Settlement. K-2 Page 165 DISTRIBUTORS' 9.18.21 EXHIBIT UPDATES 11.Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Distributor Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation Form is interpreted differently from the Distributor Settlement in any respect, the Distributor Settlement controls. I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity. Signature: Name: Title: Date: K-3 ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 166 Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement Governmental Entity: State: CO Authorized Official: Address 1: Address 2: City, State, Zip: Phone: Email: The governmental entity identified above ("Governmental Entity") hereby provides Colorado Counties, Inc. (for counties) or the Colorado Municipal League (for municipalities) ("Escrow Agent") the enclosed copies of the Governmental Entity's endorsed Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms and the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding ("Colorado MOU"), to be held in escrow. The Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms apply respectively to (1) the National Settlement Agreement with McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, dated July 21, 2021 ("Distributor Settlement"); and (2) the National Settlement Agreement with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its parent company Johnson & Johnson, dated July 21, 2021 ("J&J Settlement"). Pursuant to this Agreement, the Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms and the Colorado MOU will be released only ifthere is 95% participation by local governments in Colorado as further explained below. Purpose of this Agreement By endorsing a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form in the Distributor Settlement and the J&J Settlement, a governmental entity agrees to participate in those settlements and release any legal claims it has or may have against those settling pharmaceutical companies. This Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement is meant to ensure that the legal claims of governmental entities in Colorado will be released only when 95% participation by certain governmental entities has been reached. That 95% participation threshold is important because it signals to the settling pharmaceutical companies that the settlement has wide acceptance which will then secure significant incentive payments under these settlement agreements. Escrow The Escrow Agent shall promptly report the receipt of any Governmental Entity's endorsed Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms and Colorado MOUs to the Colorado Attorney General's Office and to the law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. These documents shall be released by the Escrow Agent to the Colorado Attorney General's Office if and when the Escrow Agent is notified by the Attorney General's Office and Keller Rohrback that that the threshold 95% participation levels have been reached for both the Distributor Settlement and the J&J Settlement, as further described below. Ifby December 29, 2021, the Escrow Agent has not received notification that the threshold 95% levels have been reached for both the Distributor Settlement and the J&J Settlements, then the documents being escrowed shall be returned to the Governmental Entities and all copies shall be destroyed. Attachment 7 Page 167 Distributor Settlement The Attorney General's Office and Keller Rohrback shall jointly submit a written notification to the Escrow Agent when it has been determined that the percentages of populations eligible for Incentives Band C, as described in Sections IV.F.2 and IV.F.3 of the Distributor Settlement, are each 95% or more. For purposes of this Escrow Agreement, the percentages of populations eligible for Incentives B and C under the Distributor Settlement will include governmental entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form subject to an escrow agreement and governmental entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that is not subject to an escrow agreement. J&J Settlement The Attorney General's Office and Keller Rohrback shall jointly submit a written notification to the Escrow Agent when it has been determined that the Participation or Case-Specific Resolution Levels for Incentives Band C, as described in Sections V.E.5 and V.E.6 of the J&J Settlement, are each 95% or more. For purposes of this Escrow Agreement, the percentages or populations eligible for Incentives Band C under the J&J Settlement will include governmental entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form subject to an escrow agreement and governmental entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that is not subject to an escrow agreement. Colorado Subdivision Name Authorized Signature Date ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 168 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 2. Ordinance 17-21 Amending Estes Park Municipal Code Section 2.20.010 Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment, and written comments received on the item.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 4. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the item which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. Page 169 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. *NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required to do so by State Statute. Page 170 TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: November 23, 2021 RE: Ordinance 17-21 Amending Estes Park Municipal Code Section 2.20.010 Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Review the Town Board compensation and determine if Board compensation should be adjusted prior to the upcoming Municipal election on April 5, 2022. Present Situation: An extensive review of Board compensation has been completed prior to each Municipal Election year as requested by the Town Board since 2012. The last review was completed in December 2019 and the Board approved an increase in Board salaries for members newly elected in 2020: Mayor - $12,000, Mayor Pro Tem - 10,000, and $9,000 for Trustees. The Board members elected in April 2020 received the new salaries. Staff provided data gathered from other municipalities on Board compensation at the September 14, 2021 and October 12, 2021 study sessions. During the discussions staff indicated the current Board salaries adopted in 2019 are at the midpoint of other communities and provide funds to fully pay for benefits at the family rate, a past benchmark for previous Board’s in the consideration to increase salaries. The Board suggested an increase in compensation may expand the future candidate pool and ensure any future increases in benefits would be covered. Staff reviewed increases to the Management pay family over the past 5 years, the annual merit provided to staff, and increases to insurance premiums to further evaluate proposed increases to the Board’s compensation. The following information was provided to the Board during the October 12, 2021 study session. MGMT Market Adjustment Annual Merit Insurance Premium Increase Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Trustee 2012-2017 $7,500 $6,500 $5,500 2018 0% 2% 5% $11,000 $9,000 $8,000 2019 1.70% 2% 0% 2020 2% 2% 2% $12,000 $10,000 $9,000 2021 2% 0% 0% 2022 1% 2% 2% $15,000 $13,000 $11,000 Page 171 Proposal: The proposed compensation would front load projected increases over the next four years for newly elected Board members as it relates to market increases, merit and insurance premium increases. The Board requested staff review the possibility of providing predetermined incremental increases during the course of a Board member’s term rather than provide the full increase upfront, and to determine if the current compensation would be sufficient to cover the cost of health care premiums. After review of the state statutes, Attorney Kramer would not recommend incremental increases during a term. In 2019, staff determined Board members attend approximately 160 hours of meetings annually. As noted previously, some Board members may have additional liaison or meetings they attend which would increase the average hours. These hours do not reflect hours a Board member may spend preparing for each meeting as this varies by member or hours spent meeting with constituents. Staff utilized the Larimer County living wage for two adults and the family rate for benefit premiums to further evaluate the proposed increases. In 2019 the living wage was $20.43 and in 2021 the living wage increased to $23.24. Utilizing the current growth rate for both the living wage and Town benefits staff estimates the proposed increases to would keep the Board compensation in line with the cost of living. Advantages: • Board compensation would remain in line with the market increases and merit for the management pay family as projected for the next four years. • Be in line with the living wage for Larimer County for two adults. Disadvantages: • Newly elected Board members would receive compensation which reflects projected increases for the next four years upfront rather than over the course of their term. Action Recommended: Staff has prepared an Ordinance outlining a $3,000 increase for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and $2,000 for Trustee. Finance/Resource Impact: Any increase in compensation may require adjustment to the Legislative budget. Level of Public Interest: Low. Sample Motion I move to approve/deny Ordinance 17 -21. Attachment: 1. Ordinance 17 -21 Page 172 ORDINANCE NO. 17-21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.20.010 REGARDING COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of section 31-4-301(4), C.R.S., the Mayor and Trustees shall receive such compensation as fixed by ordinance; and WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code provides for compensation of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to amend section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: In this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads. Section 2: Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code shall be amended, by adding italicized material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows: 2.20.010 - Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees. . . . (1)The Mayor shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of twelve fifteen thousand dollars ($1215,000.00) per year during each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments. (2)The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of ten thirteen thousand dollars ($1013,000.00) per year during each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments. (3)Each Town Trustee shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of nine eleven thousand dollars ($911,000.00) per year during each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments. Such sums shall apply to new terms of office beginning upon or after the effective date of the most recently adopted version of this section. For terms beginning Attachment 1 Page 173 prior, compensation shall be as established by the ordinance in effect at the commencement of the term. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 174